THE 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY 
CONTROVERSY, 



IN 1866. 



THE OUTBREAK OF THE LIFE-LONG FEUD BETWEEN THE 
TWO GREAT STATESMEN, 

ROSCOE CONKLING AND JAMES G. BLAINE. 




JAMES B. FRY, 

Brevet Major-General, U. S. A. [Retired.] 



PRESS OF 

A. G. Sherwood & Co., 

47 Lafayme Place, New York. 

1898. 



JBJpIEASED ^ ^^ »- 






' ' WHEN MEN CEASE TO C0MPL.4JN OF INJUSTICE IT IS AS IF THEY 
SULLENLY CONFESSED THAT GOD IS DEAD." 



PREFACE. 



It is not to be expected that men of the present 
time will be interested in an account of contentions in 
1866 between Mr. Conkling and an army officer, or even 
between Mr. Conkling and Mr. Blaine ; but they are 
concerned in knowing how far investigating com- 
mittees sometimes go in assumption of power, in failing 
to duly weigh testimony, in admission of partiality, 
and in violation of justice. 

" The judicial power," says the Constitution, 
" shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in sucli 
inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time 
ordain and establish." " No person shall be deprived 
of life, liberty or property without due process of 
law." There is no pretense that " the Congress " has 
ever ordained or established investigating committees 
of the House of Representatives, or the House itself, 
as part of the " judicial power " of the United States, 
or as a power of any kind, through which persons may 
be deprived of life, liberty or property. When our 
Government was formed, the British House of Com- 
mons had pronounced " that whatever is enacted or 
declared for law by the Commons in Parliament as- 
sembled hath the force of law, and all the people of 
this nation are concluded thereby, although the con- 
sent and concurrence of the King or House of Peers be 
not had thereto." The framers of our Constitution 
purposely withheld from the House of Representatives 

5 



6 PREFACE. 

the extraordinary power declared by the House of 
Commons, and also the power exercised by the Com- 
mons, to confiscate property, imprison Judges, cut off 
men's noses and ears, and commit other like atrocities. 
Such acts formed precedents to be shunned, not fol- 
lowed. Under our system, every offense calling for 
loss of life, liberty or property, comes within the 
jurisdiction of one court or another, ordained and 
established by or under the Constitution. For a 
legislative body, by virtue of its so-called "privilege " 
to punish a citizen without law, judge or jury is in- 
consistent with the principles of freedom and justice 
imbedded in, and essential to, our governmental sys- 
tem. Nevertheless, our House of Representatives, 
by its own dictum, deprives persons of their liberty 
and good name. That this unauthorized and irre- 
sponsible mode of punishment ought to be curbed, 
there can be no reasonable doubt. 

As the action and power of the House of Repre- 
sentatives are discussed in some detail in the following 
pages, I deem it proper to say that T have the pro- 
foundest respect for Congress, and I intend by these 
pages no breach of privilege and no discourtesy to 
any department or institution of the Government. 

So, too, with individuals upon whose parts I com- 
ment, it is not my purpose to injure or offend anyone. 
My object is to present a plain and correct account of 
a public matter in which I was misjudged and 
wronged. In doing that I must hew to the line, let 
the chips fly where they will. 

A committee of the House in the 39th Congress 
was appointed April 30, 1866, "to investigate the 



PREFACE. 



statements and charges made by Hon. Roscoe Conk- 
ling in his place last week against Provost Marshal 
General Fry and his Bureau, whether any frauds 
have been jDerpetrated in his office in connection with 
the recruiting service ; also to examine into the state- 
ments made by General Fry in his communication to 
Hon. Mr. Blaine, read in the House this day." 

This committee failed to investigate the state 
ments and charges made by Mr. Conkling against me, 
but made a so-called examination into the statements 
made in my communication to Mr. Blaine and reported 
that my letter, which at Mr. Blaine's instance was read 
at the Clerk's desk by permission of the House, was a 
breach of privilege by me, and pronounced the state- 
ments in it entirely without foundation in truth. 
The House adopted the committee's report. 

From such a finding by the people's representa- 
tives there is no appeal, except to the people them- 
selves. It therefore seems incumbent upon me to 
lay before that high tribunal proof that the state- 
ments made by me in 1866 in a letter to Mr. Blaine 
concernino; a contention in the House between him and 
Mr. Conkling are true. This forces me to examine 
in detail the committee's record and ijndings, and is 
my apology for asking my readers to go, as patiently 
as they can, through my long and somewhat tedious 
" Review of the Committee's Report," Chapter V. 

J. B. F. 



Chapter I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

• ... 

The so-called Conkling and Blaine-Fry affair oc- 
curred in 1 866, a quartei- of a century ago. It has passed 
almost beyond the domain of feeling with me. I think 
I can treat it without passion or prejudice. The first 
time I remember meeting Mr. Conkling was in 1865, 
when he visited Washington upon the recruiting busi- 
ness in his District. 1 had no real personal acquaint- 
ance with him, and I have not a particle of animosity 
towards him. We met again in General Grant's parlor in 
1883 soon after the General's financial troubles, I. 
was standing near Mrs. Grant when Mr. Conkling ap- 
proached. She introduced us, and we shook hands. 
When taking my leave a little later, I walked lip 
to Mr. Conkling where he sat talking to General Grant, 
and calling him by name, bade him good night, offer- 
ing him my hand, which he took, making a polite re- 
sponse. We were then, so to speak, both on the 
retired list of public service. That was th6 only time 
I met him after 1866, and no communication or mes- 
sage ever passed between us after that date. 

I made Mr. Blaine's acquaintance in Washington 
in 1863. We were soon upon friendly, even intimate 
terms. Since 1866 our paths have been far apart ; we 
have seldom met, and have had but little corre- 
spondence, none that I recall of importance concerning 
the old fracas. 

In gallantly repulsing Mr. Conkling's assault upon 

9 



10 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

me in tlie House, Mr. Blaine was moved by a sense of 
justice and fair play. He was under no obligation to 
espouse my cause then or guard ray interests subsequent- 
ly. He was continuously in public life and deserved 
the prestige of victory in the debate which he enjoyed. 
It has been said that this quarrel created a hos- 
tility between Mr. Blaine and Mr. Conkling which 
prevented the former and perhaps the latter from 
being elected to the Presidency. " Politics makes 
strange bed fellows," but I believe there would have 
been a rupture between Mr. Blaine and Mr. Conkling 
if this affair had never occurred. The debate upon 
the occasion shows feelings and traits which promised 
anything but harmonious political work. The " with- 
ering sarcasm " which these distinguished men hurled 
at each other in that debate manifested bad feelino; so 
intense, firmly rooted, and so well grown as to be sure 
of fruitage sooner or later. A split with lasting con- 
sequences between these two Republican members of 
the House of Representatives, it seems to me, was in- 
evitable. Nevertheless, it is certain that the enmity 
between Mr. Conkling and Mr. Blaine was an impor- 
tant factor in the affairs of the Republican party, hav- 
ing a marked effect in the convention of 1876, before 
which both were strongly supported, with the result 
that Mr. Hayes was chosen, and in the convention of 
1880, which nominated General Garfield, who was 
elected. President Garfield appointed Mr. Blaine 
Secretary of State, and it is probable that the old feud 
had much to do with Mr. Conkling's resignation as 
Senator, his failure to secure a re-election, and his dis- 
appearance from public life. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



11 



In 1884, Mr. Blaine was the Republican nominee 
for the Presidency, and there is good reason to believ 
that he would have been elected if he had received th 
earnest suppoi-t of Mr. Conkling. /i 




A committee of the House, the tribunal chosen pj 
Mr. Conkling to investigate, reported fully and uh-. 
equivocally in his favor, condemning me directly and ^^ ^ 
Mr. Blaine indirectly. Nevertheless, friends of Mr.*"^^ 
Conkling have from time to time come before the 
public to prove that he was victorious or to defend 
him against the conse(|uences of his victory. More 
than once, the report against me by the investigating 
committee has been shown in the most highly colored 
light, not so much, I imagine, to injure me, as to reach 
Mr, Blaine, whose censure by the committee and the 
House was comparatively indirect. 

When the committee's report was made public in 
1866, I was advised to apply for a military Court of 
Inquiry, and Mr. Blaine himself at the time thought 
such a tribunal desirable, lest the Senate should regard 
the action of the House as a reason for refusing to 
confirm my nomination for promotion or appointment 
in the future.* 

* It did not turn out so. All the appointments conferred upon me 
were confirmed, and commissions were issued to me as follows: 

Major- General by brevet, July 17, 1866, " for faithful, meritorious, 
and distinguished services in the Provost Marshal-General's department." 

Brigadier-General by brevet, Jime 10. 1868, " for gallant and meri- 
torious services in the battles of Shiloh, Tennessee, and Perryville, Ken- 
tucky." 

Colonel by brevet, "for gallant and meritorious services in the 
battle of Bull Run [1st.], Virginia." 

Colonel in the Adjutant Gen3rars department, March 12, 1875. 

In all these cases my appointments were confirmed by the Senate. 
When part of them were acted upon, Mr. Conkling was a member of the 
Senate ; and he was a member of the House when the others were con- 
sidered 



12 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

But I maintained that it was not for me to seek 
or avoid investigation, I felt that I had performed 
my duties honestly and efficiently, and that time 
would bring me Justice. That belief and the condi- 
tion of public affairs induced me to remain silent. 
The desperate, protracted and exhausting civil war 
was over. The great armies which I had much to 
do in raising had been mustered out, and their com- 
ponents had returned to civil pursuits. The whole 
country was rejoicing over the return of peace, and 
the Government and people were concentrating their 
thoughts and energies upon the reconstruction of the 
States lately in rebellion, and upon the establishment 
of harmony and good feeling. I was unwilling to 
thrust myself forward for a vindication which I felt 
time would bring. While waiting for the verdict of 
time, my grievance has become old and dry, and I have 
hesitated to ask the public to touch it, though others 
from time to time have bi'ought it up to my detriment. 

The New York Herald of June 4, 1888, gave 
place to an elaborate and able article by Mr. George 
C. Gorham, with the caption in large letters, " Justice 
to Mr. Conkling." Mr. Gorham says in his opening : 
" I should be recreant to the strongest ties of friend- 
ship which bound me to him, and false to the promises 
I made him, if I failed to give his explanation of the 
two matters concerning which he felt he had been mis- 
Judged. In doing this, censure must fall on some, for 
the truths that alone can set him right convict 
others of outrage and wrong." One of the two matters 
concerning which Mr. Gorham gives Mr. Conkling's 
" explanation " is the Conkling and Blaine-Fry matter. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 13 

Mr. Gorham's account of it is incomplete and un- 
just to me, I noticed the article in a letter wliicli 
was published as follows in the Herald of June 10, 

1888: 

To THE Editor of the Herald : — 

I do not suppose that in his article, published in the Herald of the 
4tli inst., Mr. George C. Gorham gave a thought tome. No doubt 
his only purpose in quoting the report made against me by a commit- 
tee of the United States House of Representatives in 1866 was to sus- 
tain his contention that Mr. Conkling got the better of Mr. Blaine in 
an acrimonious debate in which the former attacked and the latter de- 
fended me in the House of Representatives. But I feel called upon to 
say a few words. It is true that a committee of the House, after a so- 
called investigation, reported, and the House adopted, a resolution 
saying that statements made by me in a letter conceining Mr. Conkling 
were "wholly without foundation in truth," and that they ''origi- 
nated in no misapprehension of facts," but " in the resentment and 
passion of the author." 

Mr. Gorham shows the great injustice done to Mr. Conkling by 
politicians, and he closes his article by citing in Mr. Conkling' s favor 
the sentiment, to which I fully accede, that "the strength of a man's 
character is better shown by what he endures than by what he per- 
forms. ' ' 

I make no charge of corruption, conspiracy or malice, either in 
the committee or House, but I am prepared to show as clearly as Mr. 
Gorham has shown for Mr Conkling that I was deeply wronged. But 
I cannot ask the public to listen to my desiccated grievances. Instead 
of that, however, possibly your readf^rs will permit me to say that I 
have been an officer of the army more than forty -one years, having 
entered at the age of twenty. During all that time 1 have never been 
plaintiff or defendant in a suit, have never been called before a 
court martial or court of inquiry, have never been under charges or 
under arrest, and, so far as I remember, have never received from civil 
or military authority an order or letter conveying censure or reproof. 

Accepting Mr. Gorham' s statements as correct, he shows that, 
with envy, hatred and malice in their hearts, a host of Republican 
politicians, among them editors. Senators, Cabinet Ministers and the 
President of the United States, conspired to humiliate and destroy so 
good and great a man as Roscoe Conkling ; and that, in spite of Mr. 
Conkling' s ability, purity, strength and courage, the conspiracy drove 
him from public life in a state of disgust that attended him to the 



14 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



grave, and with a reputation that Mr. Gorham thought called for de- 
fence in some particulars at his hands. In the light of Mr. Gorham' s 
demonstration concerning this great man, it is not worth while to 
trouble the public with an account of how a comparatively obscure 
army officer, the head of a military bureau, which necessarily bore 
heavily upon the political affairs of every Congressional district, got 
injured when the two leading politicians of the party Mr. Gorham 
brings to attention, fought over him. Personally I knew Mr. Conk- 
ling only as a " good hater" ; but I venture the assertion in all candor 
that he did not need the defence Mr. Gorham has made for him -the 
defence of a zealous friend and an accomplished writer, but a defence 
which places in a despicable light many of the politicians and methods 
of the party of which Mr. Conkliug was an able and conspicuous 
member. JAMES B. FRY. 

New York City. 

My letter, so far as I know, elicited no response or 
inqiiii'}', and I let the subject drop. 

In an article in the New York Sun of June 14, 
1891, Mr. George Alfred Townsend says: " In 1869 Mr. 
Blaine said to me, Conkling is as smart as he can be," 
and Mr. Townsend adds : " Fry appears to have left 
Blaine without evidence." I think the following 
pages prove that I did not leave Mr. Blaine without 
evidence. 

Recently, moreover, a life of Roscoe Conkling, by 
his nephew, Mr. Alfred Conkling, has appeared. The 
subject, and perhaps the treatment of it, entitles this 
work to a place in history. The formal presentation 
by such high authority as Mr. Gorham, Mr. Townsend 
and Mr. Alfred Conkling of a case in which I have 
long been deeply concerned makes it proper, I think, 
to give my account of the matter. I may add that an 
editorial article in the New York Evening Sun of Jan- 
uary 21, 1890, entitled, "The Truth of History re- 
specting Hoscoe Conkling and J. G. Blaine," makes 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



15 



some erroneous and unjust mention of me, saying: 
^'It is not generally known that Mr. Conkling intended 
to prosecute General Fry for criminal libel, but some 
one betrayed Mr. Conkling's purpose, and General Fry 
went to California, beyond the reach of criminal proc- 
ess." Friends in all quarters of the country liave 
brought to my notice reprints of this article in local 
papers. The substance of the article will be covered 
by the general remarks to follow, but I may say here that 
1 never heard of any intention on Mr. Conkling's part 
to prosecute me, that I distinctly invited charges more 
than once, and that 1 remained on duty in Washing- 
ton from the close of the investigation in July until I 
was relieved from duty there in the following Novem- 
ber ; that I then went to California, my regular mili- 
tary station, not of my own volition, but in 'pursuance 
of regular military orders. 

When the time came for closing the Bureau of the 
Provost Marshal-General, I addressed to the Secretary 
of War a letter as follows : 

' ' In closing this office, as required by law, and transferring the 
records and unfinished business to another Bureau, in accordance with 
your orders, I beg leave respectfully to urge that, in case of any 
charges or allegations of improper official conduct on my part, I may 
be allowed access to the records of this office, and an opportunity for 
explanation, and that a full investigation be had of everything which 
the Department may deem worthy of official notice." 

So far as I know no charges against me ever 
reached the War Department, and nothing in the 
nature of accusations is to be found there. 



Chapter II. 

THE OUTBREAK IN THE HOUSE. 

In the House of Representatives, on the 24tb day 
of April, 1866, a bill providing for tlie reorganization 
of the army being under consideration— the 20th sec- 
tion of which provided for the permanent establish- 
ment of the Bureau of the Provost Marshal General, 
and giving him the rank of Brigadier-General — Hon. 
Boscoe Conlding said :^ 

' ' I move to strike out section 20 of that bill. My objection to 
this section is that it creates an unnecessary office for an undeserving 
public servant ; I have never heard any serious attempt to justify by 
argument the permanent continuance of an officer whose administra- 
tion during th*e war has had in it so little to commend, and so much to 
condemn. 

' ' I protest against any promotion or reward for the officer whose in- 
terests are involved in this section. He holds already the rank of 
Lieutenant-Colonel in the Staff Department. 

" Indeed, by accident, if the pending billsliall pass, he will be ele- 
vated to a yet higher grade ; but as he stands now, his pay amounts to 
$3 500, or thereabouts. 

' ' I think that, for the present, is enough for him. He has suf- 
fered nothing, and lost nothing, in the war, that I ever heard of, and I 
protest, in the name of my people, and in the name of the people of the 
Western Di\ ision of New York, against perpetuating a power under 
which they have suffered beyond the capacity of any man adequately 
to state in the time allotted to me. 

'• Central and Western New York have a right to feel, and do feel 
deeply on this subject. My constituents remember, and other con- 
stituencies remember, wrongs done them too great for forgetfulness, 
and almost for belief, by the creatures of this Bureau, and by its head. 

" We in the Western Division of New York had sent to rule over 
us as Assistant Provost Marshal General an officer of the Veteran Re- 

* For debate in full, see Appendix A. 

16 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 17 

serve Corps*; a man who never saw a battle, who never received a 
scratch, or suffered a day's sickness in the military service. 

' ' I could not I'emam silent when I know that in my own district and 
elsewhere men who stood up honestly and attempted to ' resist bounty 
jumpers' and thieves were stricken down and trodden under foot by 
General Fry. 

' ' I affirm that the only way to acquit him of venality is to con- 
vict him of the most incredible incompetency." 

When Mr. Conkling began the foregoing speech, 
Mr. Blaine was talking to a friend in the diplomatic 
gallery of the House, but his quick ear caught the 
tenor of the remarks, and he hurried to his seat, and 
getting the floor replied as follows : 

' ' I am in a very weakly condition of health to make the brief ex- 
planation due to the Military Committee. But I wish to state why 
the Committee reported this section of the bill in regard to which the 
gentleman from New York shows so much feeling. I believe that 
among the earliest acts of the gentleman from New York at this session 
of Congi-ess was the introduction of a resolution which was adopted by 
this House, directing the War Department to report uj)on the expediency 
of abolishing the office of Provost Marshal General. In the routine of 
business the answer of the Secretary of War came to the Military Com- 
mittee, and among the papers was a letter from Lieutenant-General 
Grant; there was also an elaborate paper from Genei'al Townsend. They 
were referred to a Sub-Committee. The Committee, upon a full re- 
view of the papers, and especially of the letter of Lieutenant-General 
Grant, reported this section. " 

Mr. Blaine had read at the clerk's desk Gen. 
Grant's letter dated Dec. 14, 1865, as follows : 

" Sir : — In reply to your letter of the 13th, in reference to deser- 
tions, I would make the following remarks : I do not think the present 
method of recruiting as carried out sufficient to fill up the regular 
army to the force required, or to keep it full when once filled. The 
duty is an important one, and demands, I think, the exclusive attention 
of an officer of the "War Department aided by a well organized system 
extending over the country. I think the officer best fitted for that posi- 
tion by his exj^erience during the present war is General Fry, and would 
recommend that the whole subject of recruiting be put in his hands. 
He should also have charge of the apprehension of deserters. ' ' 

* This offer was assigned by me at request of the Secretary of State, 
W. H. Seward. 



18 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

After the reading of this letter from Gen. Grant, 
Mr, Blaine added : 

"The House will observe that the Committee upon Military Atfairs 
acted precisely in accordance with the recommendations of the Lieu- 
tenant-General as contained in the letter which has just been read. The 
Committee's report was made in express conformity with the recom- 
mendations of that officer' s letter, which came officially before the Com- 
mittee, and which was not smuggled in in the manner in which the letter 
read by the gentleman from New York comes before us. That is not an 
official letter, it is an unofficial note. The letter just read by the 
clerk is an official note communicated to this House by the Secretary 
of War on a regular call, and referred by the House to the Committee 
on Military Affairs. 

"Mr. Speaker, I do not supi^ose that the House of Representatives 
cares anything more than the Committee on Military Affairs about the 
great recruiting frauds in New York or tlie quarrels of the gentleman 
from New York with Gen. Fry, in which quarrel it is generally un- 
derstood the gentleman came out second best at the War Department. 
I do not think chat such questions ought to be obtruded here. 
Though the gentleman from New York has had some difference with 
Gen. Fry, yet I take pleasure in saying that, as 1 believe, there is not in 
the American army a more honorable or high-toned officer than General 
Fry. That officer, I doubt not, is ready to meet the gentleman from New 
York or anybody else in the proper forum. 

' ' I must say that I do not think it is a very creditable proceeding for 
the gentleman from New York here in his place to traduce General Fry 
as a military officer where lie has no opportunity to be heard. I do not 
consider such a proceeding the highest specimen of chivalry that could 
be exhibited. The gentleman from New York has had his issues with 
General Fry at the War Department. They have been adjudicated upon 
by the Secretary of War, and I leave it for the gentleman to say whether 
he came out first best. I do not know the particulars, the gentleman can 
inform the House. All I have to say ,is, and in this I believe I speak 
the sentiment of a majority of the members of the House, that James 
B. Fry is a most efficient officer, a high-toned gentleman, whose char- 
acter is without spot or blemish, a gentleman who stands second to no 
officer in the American army, and he is ready to meet the gentleman 
from New York and all other accusers anywhere and everywhere. 

And, Sir, when I hear the gentleman from New York rehearse in the 
House, as an impeachment to General Fry, all the details of the frauds 
in New York which General Fry used his best energies to repress with 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 19 

iron hand, a sense of indignation carries me beyond my personal 
strength, and impels me to denounce such a course of proceedings." 

To this Mr. Conkliiig replied : 

" Mr. Speaker, if General Fry is reduced to depending for vindica- 
tion upon the gentleman from Maine, he is to be commiserated certainly. 
If I have fallen to the neces-ity of taking lessons from that gentleman 
in the rules of propriety or of right or wrong. God help me. I say to 
him further that I mean to take no advantage, such as he attributes, of 
the privilege of this place or the absence of General Fry. On the con- 
trary, I am ready to avow what I have here declared anywhere. I have 
stated facts for which I am willing to be held responsible at all times 
and places. I say further that the statements made by the gentleman 
from Maine with regard to myself personally, and my quarrels with 
General Fry and their result are false. ' ' 

"What," asked Mr. Blaine, " does the gentleman mean to say 
was false?" "Imean, " replied Mr. Conkling, "to say that the 
statement made by the gentleman from Maine was false." 

Mr. Conkliiig's flat contradiction of Mr. Blaine's 
statement concerning quarrels with me put before the 
House and the country an issue of fact between the 
two. 

The debate, which was continued upon that oc- 
casion, is given in full, in Appendix A. 

As soon as I learned what had been said in the 
House on the 24th of April (which I think was from 
the newspapers next morning), I began a letter * to 
Mr. Blaine, completed and dated April 27, thanking 
him for defending me, and confirming the correctness 
of what he said concerning Mr. Conkling's hostility 
to me. 

* For letter in full see Appendix B. 

Two or three personal friends were consulted in the preparation of 
the letter, and a rough draft was shown to Mr. Blaine, by whose advice 
some of the expressions were sharpened. When completed, the letter 
was shown to General E. C. Schenck, then Chairman of the House Mil- 
itary Committee. By none of these persons was it even hinted to me, 
so far as I remember, that the letter might or could be treated by the 
House as a breach of privilege. 



20 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

I did not pi-epare the letter to be read in the 
House, had no power to have it read there, and did 
not ask the House to have it read there. 

But I intended Mr. Blaine to use it as he thous-ht 
best, to have the benefit of all there was in it in his 
favor, and intended also in some way to get it before 
the public in vindication of myself against Mr. Conk- 
ling's unexpected, unjust and violent attack upon me 
personally and officially. 

I wrote the letter, as I thought I had a right to 
do, in defence of myself against defamatory statements 
made to the world, through the U.S. House of Repre- 
sentatives, and I had no intention of committing a 
breach of privilege. 

Among the rules of the House there was one to 
the effect that a member who read as a part of his 
speech a letter which violated the privileges of the 
House was himself responsible, but if he had the same 
letter read from the clerk's desk, and made it a part 
of his speech, the responsibility did not rest upon the 
member, but upon the House itself which permitted 
the reading. Mr. Blaine had my letter read from the 
clerk's desk and escaped technical responsibility for 
breach of privilege by virtue of the nice rule just 
mentioned. 

The House, however, was determined to assert its 
high privilege, and being unable or unwilling to blame 
itself for the alleged breach it had permitted, and also 
being stopped by its own rules from holding the mem- 
ber who introduced and used the letter, fell back upon 
the writer of the letter. As I have always admitted 
my responsibility for the letter, I do not desire to 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 21 

make use of this attitude of the House, but I am will- 
ing that others should judge its fairness and con- 
sistency. 

On the 30th of April, Mr. Blaine arose in his place 
in the House upon the issue of fact already mentioned 
between him and Mr. Conkling, and said : 

' ' I hold in my hand a letter from Provost Marshal-General Fry, 
which I ask to have read at the clerk' s desk for the double purpose of vin- 
dicating myself from the charge of having stated in debate last v^eek 
what was false, and also for the purpose, which I am sure will com- 
mend itself to the House, of allowing fair_play to an honorable man in 
the same forum in which he has been assailed. I wish further to 
say that if on investigation I had found I was in error in the state- 
ment I have made touching the member from the Utica district of New 
York [Mr. Conkling], and Provost Marshal-General Fry, I would, mor- 
tifying as it would have been, have apologized to the House. Whether 
I was in error or not, I leave to those who hear the letter of the Provost 
Marshal-General. ' ' 

Thus it is made plain that the issue before the 
House was between Mr. Conkling and Mr. Blaine, and 
that the House admitted my letter presented by the 
latter as testimony upon his side of, the case. The 
House, however, took no action upon the issue before 
it, but proceeded against me for furnishing the testi- 
mony which one of its members offered, and which 
the House admitted without a dissenting voice. 

In my letter, which is given in full with accom- 
panying documents in Appendix B, I thanked Mr. 
Blaine for having defended me, and said to him: "Your 
assertions touching Mr. Conkling's difficulties with this 
Bureau are amply and completely justified by the facts 
which this letter will disclose." I then gave a sum- 
mary of the facts referred to. I went further, how- 
ever, than furnishing evidence of the truth of Mr. 



22 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

Blaine's statement, and entered upon a defence of my- 
self, ^vhich, as I viewed the subject, required a some- 
what vigorous attack upon Mr. Conkling. Among 
other things I said : 

' ' My Bureau is a subordinate branch of the War Department, 
and I wish here to point out clearly the fact that my business has been 
conducted under the constant supervision and direction of the Secretary 
of War, and those authorized to act in his name. It ought not to be 
necessary for me to remind Mr. Conkling or tlie people that Mr. Stan- 
ton has never been unwilling to make exaoii nations into the conduct 
of his subordinates, nor slow to act upon the result of them. 

" This of itself is a sufficient reply to Mr. Conkling' s abuse of me, 
especially as it is a fact that every request, complaint, or accusation 
of any importance made by him to or afifecting this Bureau, has been 
laid before the Secretary of War, and passed upon by him. It is true that 
the result has in nearly every instance been unfavorable to Mr. Conk- 
ling; and assuming that these were the differences or quarrels which 
were referred to in the debate as those in which Mr. Conkling came out 
second best, he asserted what was not true when he denied them. Mr. 
Conkling says that he may hereafter inform Congress what number of 
all the men who received bounty reached the front, intimating that 
the proportion was small. I, for one, should be glad to obtain that in- 
formation . The duty of sending men to the front rested with the Ad- 
jutant-General of the army, not with me. He also hints that he may 
hereafter make a damaging expose of the operations of my Bureau. 
Whatever he may adduce in this connection, he probably will not be 
able to disprove that it raised more than a million of men for the army, 
that it arrested and returned to the service over 76,000 deserters, and 
raised by its own operations in conformity to laws over twenty-six 
millions of dollars, which sum has been properly disposed of. That 
there were frauds in my branch of the service I admit ; but that they 
prevailed to a greater degree in it than in others, or that earnest and 
zealous efforts were not made by me to pursvie, correct, and punish 
them, no man dare have the hardihood to assert. The frauds and 
malpractices which did occur were almost entirely in connection with 
the local bounties which could not be cor trolled by the United States, 
and wliich corrupted some of the officers of the Bureau, but more of 
the people at large, including supervisors, agents, etc., selected by the 
people to disburse the funds which they so lavishly bestowed. The 
general management of my business has received the approval of all 
dispassionate parties u ho have had an opportunity to judge of it, in- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 23 

eluding the late President and that superior officer to whom I have 
been directly responsible, whose vigor and whose capacity and oppor- 
tunity to judge are beyond dispute, and it will not be forgotten that 
complaints and accusations have been spread with great industry be- 
fore the high officials last referred to. I have been at all times amen- 
able to the severest form of law, the Military Code, liable at any 
moment to summary arrest, court martial, and extreme punishment in 
case of any dereliction of official duty. No one knew or knows this 
fact better than Mr. Conkling, and if, while acting as Judge Advocate 
under the extraordinary inquisitorial powers bestowed upon him, he 
came into the possession of any fact impugning or impeaching my in- 
tegrity as a public officer, he was guilty of great public wrong and un- 
faithfulness, if he did not instantly file formal charges against me with 
the Secretary of War. He can, therefore, only escape the charge of delib- 
erate and malignant falsehood as a Member of Congress by confessing 
an unpardonable breach of duty as Judge Advocate. ' ' 

I also said in the letter, speaking of Mr. Conk- 
ling's service as special Jnclge Advocate : 

' ' For his services in this connection Mr. Conkling received on the 
9th November last, from the United States, the modest fee ot $3,000," 
and I charged that • ' he was as zealous in preventing prosecu- 
tions at Utica, as he was in making them at Elmira, " adding 
" whether his action in exercising the functions of Judge Advocate, 
and receiving pay therefor from the United States to the amount of 
$3,000, while receiving his compensation as a Member of Congress, 
was a violation of the letter, or the spirit, or both, of Ai-ticle one, 
section two, of the Constitution, I leave others to decide. ' ' 

After the reading of the letter Mr, Conkling 
made a speech (see Appendix B), in which he said : 

• ' I did not file in the War Department long ago information in 
reference to widespread frauds in recruiting in the State of New York, 
in Avhich extensive combinations of active men were banded together 
in office and out : I did not act as counsel for the Government in un- 
earthing and breaking up the combinations, and exposing the actors; I 
did not devote upwards of four months of patient labor in an attempt 
to arrest the enormous robberies and wrongs which prevailed in the 
State of New York; nor did I make an assault upon this Bureau here 
without counting the cost, and knowing the consequences. I was pre- 
pared for all calumnies, and all the responsibility that he must take who 
strikes at the thieves, marauders and miscreants who have fattened 



24 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

upon the necessities and needs of their country. I knew the resources 
and desperation of the men who have made wealth out of the public 
woe. I did not forget, nor did I desire to avoid, the responsibility of 
being asked to make good by proof the accusations I made. Of course I 
expected, by despatches to newspapers instigated by General Fry and his 
satellites, by every mode, secret and open, of influencing the public 
judgment and diverting the attention from the objects of accusation, to 
be vilified, and I hope to be permitted, if not invited, to point out to 
some authority competent to receive and act upon it, the evidence on 
which I relied. That opportunity will be oflEered if a Committee shall 
be appointed." 

A Committee was appointed in due course. Be- 
fore the day's debate closed Mr. Blaine answered Mr. 
Conkling [see Appendix B], saying: 

'' As to the gentleman's cruel sarcasm, I hope he will not be too 
severe. Contempt of that large-minded gentleman is so wilting, his 
haughty disdain, his grandiloquent swell, his majestic super-emi- 
nent overpowering turkey-gobbler strut, has been so crushing to myself 
and all the members of this House, that I know it was an act of the 
greatest temerity for me to ventui-e upon a controversy with him. But, 
Sir. I know who is responsible for all this. I know that within the 
last five weeks, as members of the House will recollect, an extra strut 
has characterized the gentleman's bearing. It is not his fault. It is 
the fault of another. That gifted and satirical writer, Theodore Tilton 
of the New York Independent, spent some weeks recently in this city. 
His letter published in that paper embraced, with many serious state- 
ments, a little jocose satire, a part of which was the statement that the 
mantle of the late Winter Davis had fallen upon the member from New 
York. ' The gentleman took it seriously, and it has given his strut ad- 
ditional pomposity. The resemblance is great. It is striking, Hyperion 
to a Satyr, Thersites to Hercules, mud to marble, dunghill to diamond, 
a singed cat to a Bengal tiger, a whining puppy to a roaring lion. 
Shade of the mighty Davis, forgive the almost profanation of that 
jocose satire. ' ' 

I shall not undertake to trace the effect this 
notable contention, known as the Conkling and Blaine- 
Fry affair, had upon tlie political lives of Mr. Blaine 
and Mr. Conkling. 

The issue squarely joined between them was soon 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 25 

converted by the House and its Committee of Investi- 
gation into a trial of me for alleged breach of privi- 
lege in a letter to one of the contestants. The failure 
of the Committee to investigate the issue between Mr. 
Conkling and Mr. Blaine, no doubt was satisfactory at 
the time to the former, otherwise he would have called 
for investigation when he was before the Committee 
with power to do so. Although the Committee did 
not touch that point, the cori-ectness of Mr. Blaine's 
assertion was sustained by the facts read to the 
House from m}' letter, and Mr. Blaine was left victor 
in the public judgment upon the issue between him 
and Mr. Conkling, and so remained. Hence, j^lainly 
enough, there has been no special necessity on Mr. 
Blaine's own account for hira to speak upon the sub- 
ject. Mr. Conkling, notwithstanding the verdict he se- 
cured against me for the proof I furnished to Mr. Bhiine, 
directly or through his friends, took the defensive. 



Chapter III. 

THE COMMITTEE AND ITS PROCEEDINGS. 

The House, without charging that a breach of 
privilege had been committed either by the writing or 
reading of my letter to Mr. Blaine, exercised jurisdic- 
tion in the matters at issue between Mr. Conkling 
and me, and 

Resolved, That a select Committee of five members of this House 
be appointed to investigate the statements and charges made by Hon. 
Eoscoe Conkling in his place last week against Provost Marshal -Gen- 
eral Fry and his bureau ; whether any frauds have been perpetrated in 
his oflSce in connection with the recruiting service ; also to examine 
into the statements made by Gen. Fry in his communication to Hon. 
Mr. Blaine, read in the House this day, with power to send for persons 
and papers. 

The Speaker appointed the following named members to constitute 
said Conamitiee : 

Mr. Samuel Shellabarger, of Ohio ; Mr. William Windom, of 
Minnesota ; Mr. Benjamin M. Boyer, of Pennsylvania ; Mr. Burton C. 
Cook, of Illinois ; Mr. Samuel L. Warner, of Connecticut. 

Never in the history of the Government has Con- 
gress,- the supreme power, been more aggressive or 
more sensitive concerning its privileges than when this 
Committee was appointed, investigated and reported. 
For four years the fate of the nation had been at stake 
upon the sword, and though Congress had done its 
duty promptly, faithfully and efficiently, its part had 
been thrown into the shade by the brilliancy and im- 
portance of military operations. But the military sun 
had set, and the civil power had emerged from the 
shade in full splendor. The business of getting armies 
was replaced by getting rid of them. The soldier's 

26 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



27 



day had passed, and the Congressmen's day was shin- 
ing. If I may be permitted for a historical purpose 
to connect a great matter with a small one, I may add 
that the same House (39th Congress) which censured 
me in its first session, unsuccessfully impeached the 
President of the United States during its second ses- 
sion. The members of the investigating Committee, 
Mr. Conkling, my opponent, and Mr. Hotchkiss, his 
counsel, all members of that House, were drawn to- 
gether by their daily duties, ties and associations, and 
by common interest, which at that period was particu- 
larly strong. 

I, on the othe]' hand, was not only a mere soldier, 
one of the class whose day was over, but was the head 
of an obnoxious military bureau. I allege no corrup- 
tion o]" unfair purpose, but assume merely that the 
ordinary traits of human nature were at work. It 
was in the case that I was at disadvantage. The Com- 
mittee probably started without any plan of proceed- 
ing or any definite conception of the nature, scope or 
duration of the investigation. The first notice I re- 
ceived from the Committee w^as on the 2d of May. I 
at once replied to the Chairman as follows: 

" Yours of yesterday was received this morning, saying there will 
be a meeting, af 10 this morning, upon the matter of charges 
between Mr. Conkling and myself, at which meeting you invite me to 
make any statement I may desire as to the kind and extent of the evi- 
dence I may be inclined to have submitted, and the number and resi- 
dence of the witnesses. 

' ' In reply, I would respectfully state, after knowing the pro- 
gramme of the Committee, or the charges made by and against me, 
which the Committee desire evidence upon, I will be able to make a 
moi'e specific statement on the subject. 

' ' I should, however, like to know, at the initial point of the in- 



28 CONKLING AND BLAINB-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

vestigation (which I am heartily glad has been ordered) , whether it is 
the design of your honorable Committee to extend their inquiries into 
the frauds that have been perpetrated on my Bureau by parties having 
no official connection therewith; or whether it is designed simply to 
inquire into alleged frauds, or malpractices, on the part of myself, or 
any one officially connected with me, or whether both these subjects 
are to be investigated. The distinction between frauds on my Bureau, 
and frauds in it, is of course an important one. If the scope of your in- 
quiry shall embrace the former class, I shall be able to afford you a 
vast amount of information from the files of this office, indicating the 
extent to which these fraudulent prat;tices were carried on, and the 
measures pursued by this Bureau to detect, expo e and punish them. 

' ' In regard to the latter class of offenses, I shall be equally ready 
to tender you all personal and official information in my possession, 
giving the names, the offenses, and the punishments of those officers 
and employees of the bureau who were found to be corrupt. 

" It is my earnest desire to contribute in every possible way to the 
thoroughness and impai-tiality of the investigation." 

I received do answer to this letter. What effect, 
if any, it had upon the Committee I never heard,, but 
there was no meeting on May 3, and none until 
May 7, when, as the record of the Committee shows, 
there were present all the members and also " Honor- 
able Roscoe Conkling, and Honorable Giles W. Hotch- 
kiss. Counsel, and Major General James B, Fry, and 
Brig. General N. L. Jeffries, Counsel." There is nothing 
in the record, nor within my knowledge, to show that 
the Committee was sworn, and as appears by the rec- 
ord it was only at the first meeting (May 7) and the 
last (June 26) which was to hear argument of counsel, 
that all the members of the Committee were present. 
Often not more than two were present, sometimes only 
one, the members apparently taking turns in attend- 
ing, so that neither the Committee nor any member 
heard all the testimony. At the first meeting (May 
7) the record says, " ordered that the Committee pro- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 29 

ceed first to the latter braiicli of investigation directed 
by the resolution of the House, viz. : " '' To examine 
into the statements made by General Fry in his commu- 
nication to Mr. Blaine, read in the House this (April 
30)." This action of the Committee reversed the order 
of proceeding prescribed by the House, and the natural 
order of business. 

In my letter to the Committee of May 3, 1 assumed 
that the affairs of my bureau were to be investigated, 
and asked for the charges, but I received no answer 
and heard nothing upon the subject, until the Com- 
mittee announced its order just cited, that it would 
" proceed first " to examine the statements made by 
me against Mr. Conkling, and it may be stated here 
that having done that (in an imperfect way as I main- 
tained) and vindicated Mr. Conkling, it never took up 
the other branch of the subject. I did not make the 
issue, or invite it. It originated in Mr. Conkling's 
speech in the House on the 24tli April, assailing my 
personal and official character. As I was the head of 
an important bureau of the Government, and entrusted 
with great powers and onerous duties, the issue, as 
it affected the integrity of that part of the public 
service confided to me, was of great public importance, 
and of importance to me, personally. The Committee, 
it seems to me, was bound, if it believed in any degree 
the statements of Mr. Conkling concerning the Pro- 
vost Marshal-General's bureau, to make a finding 
upon that subject. My allegations against Mr. Conk- 
ling were manifestly of secondary public importance, 
and my letter to Mr. Blaine was only an incident in a 
contention which I did not begin, and for which I was 



so CONKLING AND BLAINE-FBY CONTROVERSY. 

not responsible. Nor would the regular order of pro- 
ceeding prescribed by the House have been unjust to 
Mr. Conkling. If, pursuing that order, the investiga- 
tion should show that I had been an accomplice in the 
frauds perpetrated upon the Government through my 
bureau, certainly nothing I had said about Mr. Conk- 
ling could have injured him, and no better method of 
vindicating him could have been devised than to let 
him prove the frauds he alleged, and establish the 
fact that I, his accuser, was a guilty party. But the 
Committee reversed the natural and prescribed order 
of proceedings. 

After the order of proceedings had been read 
at the first meeting (May 7), the Chairman laid my 
letter before the Committee, and it was read. Ignorant 
as I was of the plan and scope of the proposed inves- 
tigation, I took with me to this meeting certain letters 
and papers from the files of the War Department, 
having connected them together in a narrative form, 
which I wanted to submit as proofs of the truth of 
what I had said in my letter to Mr. Blaine, and I 
asked that the document mio-ht be I'ead. The record 
shows that " Mr. Conkling objected to any statement of 
General Fry being read, desired whatever testimony he 
adduced to be under the sanction of an oath, and that he 
[General Fry] should be subject to cross-examination as 
other witnesses." The Committee sustained the ob- 
jection, and directed that each paper as presented 
" should be first shown to Mr. Conklino; and his coun- 
sel, if they desired, before being read." " General Fry 
was then duly sworn by the Chairman." This action 
of Ml'. Conkling and the Committee gave a technical 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 31 

legal form to the proceedings, and the investigation 
was conducted according to sharp rules of evidence, 
with which Mr, Conkling and his counsel, an able 
brother Congressman, Mr. Hotchkiss, were well ac- 
quainted. My assistant GeneralJeffries, an able lawyer, 
who acted as my counsel, was not overmatched, but 
as the case proceeded he became overworked, and on 
the 29th of May, I presented A. G. Kiddle, Esq., as 
additional counsel, and the case was thenceforth left in 
my counsel's hands. 

The proceedings continued through May, and 
until late in June. The weather was hot, the adjourn- 
ment of Congress was at hand, and the Committee ap- 
peared to be heartily sick of its work. At its meeting 
on the 19th of June, testimony was taken as usual, 
and there was more to come, but at the close of the 
session, the Committee adjourned to meet on call of 
the Chairman, and that was the end of the investigation, 
the next meeting being on the 26th of June to hear 
argument of counsel. I desired the Committee to per- 
mit written arguments, and to wait for them, but that 
was declined, and it was decided that oral pleas should 
be made on the evenino; of June 26th. When this fact 
came to my knowledge on the 25th of June, the fol- 
lowing review or brief of the case in the form of a 
letter to my counsel was prepared : 

A. G. Riddle, Attorney, etc. 

Dear Sir : — As you well know, from the time the Congressional 
Investigation into the charges brought by myself against Hon. Roscoe 
Conkling took the form of rigid legal proceedings, I have left the con- 
duct of the matter in the hands of yourself and my assistant (General 
Jeffries), as my counsellors and advisers. I have been present very 
little during the protracted sessions in which this case has been consid- 



32 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

ered ; content to leave it, as presented by you, to the just judgment of 
the honorable members composing the Committee. 1 deem it proper, 
however, on the eve of closing that branch of the case which directly 
affects Mr. Conkling, to make a brief review of it, as some aid to you 
in the task of summing it up before the Committee. Had the Commit- 
tee been pleased to allow written pleas, I should have been glad to state 
my views in extenso ; but, as this has been refused, and as the oral plea 
has to be made to-morrow, I am compelled to make a rapid and con- 
densed resume of the points of the case in a note to you, — hoping that, 
however hastily thrown off, it may aid you somewhat in the elaborate 
review of the testimony which it vt^ill be your duty to make as my 
counsel. I am compelled to do this under the disadvantage of not 
knowing the precise terms of the testimony adduced before the com- 
mittee, and relying on the running notes kept by General Jeffries 
during the examination of the witnesses. I formally applied to the 
Committee for a copy of the record, the testimony having been phono- 
graphically reported, and offered to pay the expense of transcribing ; 
but this v^as refused. The reason for refusing is unknown to me, and 
I do not mention it now as a complaint, but simply to explain the disa- 
bility under which I labor in the review vphich I am now hurriedly 
undertaking. 

The origin of the difficulty which produced this investigation, as 
you will remember, was a speech made by Mr. Conkling in the House 
of Representatives, on the 25th of April, assailing my character person- 
ally and officially. The occasion which called forth the attack was the 
report by the Military Committee of a section of the Army Bill continu- 
ing the Provost Marshal-General's bureau as a part of the military 
peace establishment. Mr. Conkling's assault, unprovoked and uncalled 
for, was repelled with warmth by a member of the Military Committee, 
Mr. Blaine, of Maine, who very generously defended my character. 
The assault was so virulent in its tone that I felt compelled to notice it, 
and I accordingly addressed a letter to Mr. Blaine, thanking him for 
his timely and effective defense, and reviewing, with some plainness of 
speech, the personal and official relations between Mr. Conkling and 
myself. This letter was a private one, though I designed to have it 
made public in some form. It was deemed proper by Mr. Blaine, how- 
ever, to cause the letter to be read in the House, as a part of a speech 
he made on the 30th of April, in vindication of himself against the 
charge made by Mr. Conkling, in the first debate between them, of his 
having stated what was false. It was not in my power to have the 
letter read in the House — it was originally prepared with no such in- 
tention — and I presume the honorable member who procured its read- 
ing there has no desire to evade any of the responsibility properly per- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 33 

taining to the act. In that letter I made the charges which have, since 
its reading in the House, been the subject of investigation, — an investi- 
gation called for by Mr. Conkling, and neither sought for nor avoided 
by me. I did not consider my personal or official reputation so dam- 
aged by anything Mr. Conkling could say as to demand or need an 
investigation by Congress or any other branch of the Government. 
Mr. Conkling thought differently of the case, however, from his stand- 
point ; and, at his earnest and urgent request, a Committee of Investi- 
gation was granted by the House, and five honorable gentlemen ap- 
pointed to conduct it. 

At the first meeting of the Committee, I submitted a statement, in 
writing, designed to make the investigation as brief, compact, and 
direct as possible ; but Mr. Conkling objected, and insisted on having 
everything conducted by sharp rules of evidence, taking advantage of 
every turn, and proceeding in a manner which rendered legal advice 
necessary to me. I accordingly solicited your aid, since which time, 
as already remarked, I have left the case to yourself and General Jeffries. 

The charges brought by me against Mr. Conkling were substan- 
tially three ; though some subordinate and inferential ones might be in- 
cluded in my letter. 

I. The first was, that, while a member of Congress, he had taken 
the position of Judge Advocate of a General Court Martial, performed 
the duties thereof, and received pay ($3,000) for the same. I may re- 
mark here that the $3,000, as appears in evidence, was besides his ex- 
penses, he having been paid $280 in addition, under that head. It is 
shown in evidence that by an official order in due form from the Secre- 
tary of War, he was appointed Judge Advocate of the Court ; he was 
duly sworn in as such ; he performed all the duties of the office ; he 
certified the proceedings ; he certified the vouchers on which the ex- 
penses of witnesses were paid from the Treasury of the United States ; 
he summoned and swore the witnesses ; and, in short, did everything 
which a Judge Advocate could do by virtue of his office. When the 
Court was cleared for deliberation and all counsel excluded, he remained 
as official adviser of the Court. Finally, by his official management as 
Judge Advocate, the Court was commenced, and, having been sworn as 
such, the trial was had, conviction wrought, the sentence executed. 
The duties were performed between April 3 and November 9, 1865; 
and, at the latter date, he was paid for his services $3 000, besides ex- 
penses, as already stated. Three weeks later, on the first Monday in 
December. 1865, Mr. Conkling was admitted to his seat in Congress, for 
the term beginning March 4, 1865, and drew his pay, at the rate of 
$8,000 a year, exclusive of mileage, stretching back to March 4, and 
covering the whole time he was employed and paid as Judge Advocate. 



34 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

All this is in evidence of the most ample and cumulative character ; 
and, therefore, my first charge against him is fully sustained. I said in 
my letter, that 1 left others to decide whether his taking pay for two 
offices at the same time was a violation of the letter or the spirit of the 
Constitution. That decision rests primarily with the Committee and 
ultimately with the representative body of which Mr. Conkling is a 
member. But I trust you will not fail to call the attention of the Com- 
mittee to the numerous precedents applicable to the case, — precedents 
which have been growing in number and strength from the foundation 
of the Government, and all of them adverse to Mr. Conkling's right to 
take pay for the two offices, or for discharging the duties of the two 
for the same period of time. 

Mr. Conkling, as you will remember, introduced the Hon. Secre- 
tary of War to prove that he had a right to be employed as Judge Ad- 
vocate, and to discharge the duties and draw the pay. I hope you will 
not dispute this. Indeed, Mr. Conkling might have taken this point for 
granted ; for the question at issue seems to be, not whether Mr. Conk- 
ling had the right to take pay for the duties of Judge Advocate, but 
whether he had the right afterwards to take pay for the same period of 
time as a Member of Congress. 

The House of Representatives decided,' during the Thirty-eighth 
Congress, that Benjamin F. Loan and Green Clay Smith, having been 
paid as Brigadier Generals after March 4, when theirs Congressional 
term began, could not be paid for the same time as Representatives. 
The logic is not apparent that would deny the pay to a Brigadier Gen- 
eral and accord it to a Judge Advocate, or the person discharging the 
duties of one. 

Since Mr. Conkling has sought to justify himself in accepting double 
pay for the same time, I trust you will bring to the attention of the Com- 
mittee the very many points of law bearing on the case, — the numerous 
statutes that forbid it, — the great public policy that discountenances it, 
— and the opinion of many eminent men, especially Attorney- General 
Wirt, in condemnation and denunciation of it. I but suggest these 
points, leaving your more fruitful knowledge of the law to give them 
appropriate illustration and enforcement. 

Mr. Conkling showed extreme sensitiveness at my having referred, 
in a tone of irony, to the $3,000 as a ^'modest fee" for the services he 
performed as Judge Advocate. To justify himself, he invoked the testi- 
mony of such eminent counsellors as Edwin M. Stanton and Reverdy 
Johnson as to the reasonableness of the charge, and he offered to bring 
Caleb Gushing and Charles O'Connor to prove the same. It was freely 
admitted that the fee would be, at any time, very reasonable and very 
moderate for any one of the distinguished counsel named. Gentlemen 



CONKLING AND BLAINB-FRY CONTROVERSY. 35 

of their great professional eminence are justly expected to receive large 
fees for their time and their counsel, and it is certainly an amusing, if 
not suggestive, illustration of Mr. Conkling's weakness, to see him coolly 
rate himself as the professional peer of the four eminent jurists named. 
II. The second charge against Mr. Conkling contained in my letter 
was, that he was as zealous in "preventing prosecutions at Utica as he 
was in making them at Elmira," and that "I wanted exposure at both 
places, while he wanted concealment at one." 

In proof of this you will find a connected and, I think, irrefragable 
series of facts in the official papers sent by me to the Committee, many 
of which, I learn, Mr. Conkling strove to have excluded from the record, 
and I am not specifically advised as to the extent of his success in that 
effort. My suggestions to you are on the basis that those official papers 
are the most legitimate and pertinent testimony, necessarily reliable and 
beyond the charge or suspicion or possibility of being made up, as oral 
testimony may be, for the occasion. 

In Mr .Conkling's original letter of appointment, dated April 3, 
issued by order of the Secretary of War, he was authorized " to investi- 
gate ALL CASES of fraud in the Provost Marshal's Department of the 
Western Division of New York, and all misdemeanors connected with 
recruiting." His authority was, therefore, plenary, positively without 
limit, except by the geographical bounds of the Western Division of 
New York. Utica was included in this Division, and the very day Mr. 
Conkling was appointed, his attention was directed to the alleged mis- 
demeanors on the part of the Enrolment Board of the Utica District, in 
consequence of which the Board had been suspended from duty a few 
weeks before. It is in evidence that Mr. Conkling was made acquainted 
with the report of Major Luddington of an inspection of that office, 
which report cited : "I respectfully recommend that every member of 
the Board of Enrolment of the Twenty-first District of New York be 
dismissed the service, and that the money in possession of Captain 
Crandall (Provost Marshal) be seized." Also, with the report of the 
commander of the sub- rendezvous at Auburn, in which that officer, in 
speaking of the recruiting service in the Twenty-first District of New 
York, says: — " Men rotten with venereal disease, totally unfit for any 
duty, are passed by the surgeon and sent here for duty. Nine- tenths of 
the recruits sent here from that office, are the most worthless set of 
scoundrels you ever put your eyes upon." Also, with the protest of 
Colonel N. G. Axtell, 192d Regiment N. Y. Volunteers, against the 
receipt of men recruited at Utica, in which he says that the recruits 
mustered at Utica "are, without doubt, bounty- jumpers and should not 
have been mustered by any intelligent mustering officer." This evi- 
dence placed in the hands of Mr, Conkling would, it is to be supposed. 



36 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

have enabled him to prosecute to a speedy termination the charges 
made against the Utica office, he having been invested with full power 
touching the investigation of frauds and misdemeanors in that and 
every other district in the Western Division of New York. On the day 
of his appointment, April 3, after " carefully reading" all this evidence, 
Mr. Conkling filed in the War Department a letter, as follows : 

"War Department, 
" Washington City, April 3, 1865. 
"Having been authorized and requested by the Secretary of War to examine 
certain transactions in the Bureau of the Provost Marshal-General, relating to the 
Western Division of the State of New York, I have the honor to state that I have 
carefully read all the papers furnished me as on file, touchine: the Provost Marshal 
of the Twenty-first District, and, having done so, from the contents of said papers, 
as -well as from my knowledge of the facts, and of the men connected with them, I 
advise and recommend that the order suspending Captain Peter B. Crandall and the 
other members of the Enrolling Board bo revoked. and that said Board be reinstated. 

(Signed) " Roscoe Conkling." 

Mr. Conkling, by taking cognizance of the Ucica case, and giving 
it an official examination and making an official recommendation in 
relation thereto, is certainly estopped from alleging, as he has since at- 
tempted, that he had no jurisdiction of the case. Not only was his 
authority ample and plenary in his original appointment, — which was 
never revoked, annulled, or in any way limited, while he held the posi- 
tion, — but he actually took official cognizance of the case and exer- 
cised authority over it. His recommendation to restore Captain Crandall 
was not approved, and he remained suspended ; and Mr. Conkling, with 
all these facts before him, does not pretend that he ever attempted to do 
anything towards initiating proceedings against the Utica officials who 
were resting under the charges heretofore enumerated. The case was 
wholly under his cognizance, he, and he alone, under the circumstances, 
could prosecute or prevent prosecution, and he did not prosecute ; hence 
my charge, that he was as zealous in preventing prosecutions " at Utica 
as he was in making them at Elmira," and that " I wanted exposure 
at both places, while he wanted concealment at one." I submit that 
the official papers sustain my allegation. If he did not wish to prevent 
prosecutions at Utica, why did he not make them ? That is for him to 
show. I have shown that he was amply empowered to prosecute, that 
the Utica case was especially and emphatically brought to his notice, 
and that he refused or failed to institute prosecution. Mr, Conkling's 
explanation, in his speech of April 30, reported in the Qlobe (which I 
understand is in evidence), was that the Elmira case absorbed so much 
of his time that, when it was through, he " declined to go further" 
(not for want of authority, but because he thought his poor share was 
done), and that these long investigations were interfering with his 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 37 

private business ; but not being entirely satisfied with this apology, he 
afterwards, before the Committee, took the ground that his appointment 
was only to prosecute the Haddock case at Elmira, in the face of the 
fact that the very wording of his appointment authorized him to "in- 
vestigate all cases of frauds in the Provost Marshal's Department of 
Western New York," and in the face of the additional fact that he 
actually did take cognizance of the Utica case and founded official recom- 
mendations thereon. 

In support of his last taken position, that he was only authorized to 
prosecute the Haddock case at Elmira, he introduced Secretary Stanton 
and the late Assistant Secretary Dana. Both these gentlemen, I be- 
lieve, stated that it was their understanding that Mr. Conkling was 
only to prosecute the case of Major Haddock. Their recollections — 
especially that of Secretary Stanton — were not distinct or specific on 
the point; but they spoke rather of their impressions being that way. 
Such an impression would not be at all extraordinary under the circum- 
stances, in view of the fact that Mr. Conkling did confine his efforts 
very zealously to the Elmira case ; that he failed to prosecute the al- 
leged frauds at Utica and elsewhere in his Division. Indeed, the Elmira 
case was so magnified and placed in such prominence by Mr. Conkling, 
that the Secretary of War, who could not be expected to remember the 
details of official papers in all the bureau, would very naturally come 
to havfe the impression that the prosecution of Haddock was the sole 
purpose of Mr. Conkling's appointment. And I submit that the crea- 
tion of 'this impression is but a striking proof, in a striking form, of how 
completely Mr. Conkling succeeded in making prosecutions at Elmira 
and preventing them at Utica. 

In this hurried glance at the facts sustaining my second charge, I 
am compelled to omit many points of force and pertinence. You will 
doubtless know where to refer to them in the official papers submitted ; 
and I beg that you will amplify them in the manner that best com- 
mends itself to your judgment. Upon a full review of all the facts, I 
think my charge is sustained by evidence of the most comprehensive 
and incontrovertible character. Mr. Conkling's original cognizance of 
the Utica case ; his admitted knowledge of the charges against the En- 
rolment Board ; his failure to do anything in the way of prosecution 
at that point ; his putting forward one excuse for this failure in his 
speech in the House, and his assuming an entirely different ground be- 
fore the Committee, are suggestive points, which you will readily group 
together and expose. 

III. The third and only remaining charge contained in my letter 
was, that there had been quarrels between Mr. Conkling and myself. 

I do not propose to spend much time, nor do I wish you to engross 



38 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

much of the Committee's attention in jjroving that to be true. I think 
it will be admitted that the state of feeling between Mr. Conkling and 
myself for some time past has not been cordial ; and that the Commit- 
tee will hardly desire to spend time in searching out how the differ- 
ences began, how they ripened into ill-feeling, and how they finally 
became so bitter on^Mr. Conkling's part as to lead him to make an extraor- 
dinary assault on my character from his place in the House of Repre- 
sentatives. I believe courts are justified in assuming certain conclu- 
sions without asking proof in detail ; and I think one of the safe 
conclusions for this honorable Committee to adopt is, that since I in- 
sisted on removing one of the provost marshals in Mr. Conkling's 
district, on charge of fraud, and suspending another for alleged mis- 
demeanors, and refused to restore either on his application, Mr. Conk- 
ling has been my enemy, intent on injuring me, and wielding his power 
and influence to that end. The correspondence in evidence is presumed 
to be ample on this point ; how far it may be necessary to refer the 
Committee to that correspondence, I leave to your better judgment. 

Having disposed of the three j^finciiml assertions in my letter, you 
may deem it worth while to glance at the minor and incidental charges, 
to which I will very briefly allude. I referred to a rumor that Mr. 
Conkling had received $5,000 from his district for his services in the 
Elmira case ; but I did not state it as a fact within my knowledge. I 
also stated, in substance, that Mr. Conkling, — if he spoke truly against 
me in the House of Representatives, — had been false to duty as Judge 
Advocate, in not preferring charges against me, I simply repeat my 
position on this point. My charge was an alternative one, involving a 
matter of opinion touching official duty, rather than any specific fact, 
and I do not see that it is important one way or the other. So far as 
testimony could be introduced, bearing on such a point, it would have 
to be made up largely of the rules, practices, and moral convictions of 
military officers, situated as Mr. Conkling was while acting as Judge 
Advocate. I do not hesitate to express the opinion that the vast ma- 
jority of officers would have deemed it their imperative duty to file 
charges against me, had they come into possession of the facts impeach- 
ing my official integrity, as Mr. Conkling alleges he did. And with the 
testimony of Mr. Stanton in support of this view and that of Mr. Dana 
against iti I leave the case. 

You will necessarily refer to the testimony of Mr. Dana, late As- 
sistant Secretary, of War. I wish you to treat it as irrelevant. He 
took issue with me on certain statements of an immaterial nature ; and, 
without stopping to analyze his testimony, I simply pass it over as not 
pertinent to the inquiry submitted by the House to the Committee. I 
stated that Mr. Dana had vested Mr. Conkling, without Mr. Stanton's 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



39 



sanction, with extraordinary powers. Mr. Stanton states that he had 
given Mr. Dana power to confer all necessary authority ; but did not, it 
seems, until afterwards, learn that he had issued authority which 
^' enabled" &n overhauling of telegrams in various offices, not specifi- 
cally designated. Mr. Stanton states that he subsequently approved 
the action taken, and would have given more authority if necessary ; 
but, as it was done without his direct hwwledge, I was certainly sus- 
tained in my assertion, that it was without his "sanction." Sanction 
is not to be presumed, nor is it properly subsequent in its nature. It is 
specific and precedent. But I do not care to have you go into this at 
any length ; for Mr. Dana is not on trial before this Committee, and 
the charge does not affect Mr. Conkling, and it is in regard to Mr. Conk- 
ling that the Committee is now conducting the investigation. Neither is 
it necessary to spend any time on the discrepancy between statements in 
my letter and those made by Mr. Dana, touching the interview I had 
with Mr. Conkling. The affair is trivial in its nature and unimportant 
in its bearings ; and, I take it, the Committee will not wish to spend 
time on such points. I state one thing and Mr. Dana a different thing, 
on points of no importance, relating to an interview that occurred a 
year and a half ago. Let it stand in that way. 

I have thus briefly reviewed the charges contained in my letter. Of 
the principal charges, I maintain and reassert, not only the substantial, 
but literal, correctness. Touching some of the minor and inferential 
statements, some discrepancy appears in the testimony ; but this affects 
only points of an immaterial nature, all of which I might readily yield, 
without injuriously affecting my position. And I remark, in closing 
this branch of the subject, that Mr. Conkling seems not so much to have 
questioned the substantial truth of my letter, as to have challenged my 
ability to prove my assertions by the sharpest technical rules of evi- 
dence, which he favored before the Committee as the line of proceeding. 

Having disposed of all the points involved in my letter, I desire 
you to treat at length the transaction generally known as the HoboJcen 
case. There is no fact connected with it which I do not wish set forth 
fully and unreservedly. Mr. Conkling has introduced that case with 
the view of proving that I had been actuated by bad motives towards 
him, and that the animus of my letter is to be inferred from certain 
alleged facts in connection with that case, which he has industriously 
striven, but completely failed, to establish. I do not wish you to be 
satisfied with simply repelling what Mr. Conkling has sought to prove 
against me in this affair, but I trust you will turn that case, as it should 
be turned, against him, showing that he has striven to wound my 
reputation by testimony of a disgracefully unreliable character, and 
that his whole superstructure of attempted proof rests on the assertions 



40 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

of one Theodore Allen, who is proved, not only by all the circumstances 
of the case, but by the testimony of honorable witnesses, to be totally 
unworthy of credit.* 

The full history of the Hoboken affair is contained in the official 
documents submitted to the Committee, and it may be of service to you 
for me to recapitulate the points of the case as concisely and yet as 
clearly as I can. I will remark, in advance, that the facts of this case 
have been fully passed upon by my superior officers. 

In the winter of 1864-5, especially during the months of January, 
February and March, bounty -jumping had become an evil of such mag- 
nitude as to threaten the efficiency of the recruiting system. 

Our armies stood on the eve of what was felt by all to be the de- 
cisive campaign of the great civil war, and it was of the first importance 
that our ability to reinforce them should not be impaired. This was the 
point of great solicitude with Mr. Lincoln and the Secretary of War, as 
well as of all our commanders in the field. 

My bureau was charged with the weighty task of responding to 
this demand, and I found that the system of lavish local bounties was 
leading to widespread corruption, and that States, counties, cities and 
towns were paying enormous sums of money for men, and the army 
was not receiving a corresponding increase of strength ; that, in short, 
the bounty-jumping system was becoming one of immense magnitude 
and perfect organization, and that some special and extraordinary efforts 
were absolutely necessary to check it. The city of New York, and the 
cities and towns adjacent thereto, was the field in which this pernicious 
system of villainy was most formidable, and here it was determined to 
make the first attack upon it. To this end, I, on the 16th day of January, 
1865, addressed a letter to the Secretary of War, which was promptly ap- 
proved, asking that Colonel L. C. Baker, Chief Detective of the War 
Department, be put under my control for the purpose of exposing and 
checking the evils in question, and that the expenses of this undertak- 
ing be paid from the appropriation in my charge. Colonel Baker, with 
his detective force, entered at once on this duty and established himself 
in New York city about the 20th of January. As a part of his opera- 
tions, he, with his subordinates, devised and submitted to me a plan for 
arresting a large number of the most notorious of these bounty-jumpers, 
by which it was hoped to cripple, if not end, the corrupt system, by the 
alarm which would be created among its participants. The details of 
the plan were wholly of the devising of Colonel Baker and his em- 
ployees, and its execution was entrusted to them, aided by General 

* This subject is further treated in Chapter V., Eeview of the Com- 
inittee's Report. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



41 



Hinks, acting AsBistant Provost Marshal-General, in New York city. 
The scheme had my approval, and I issued, or procured such orders as 
Colonel Baker deemed essential to his plan of operations. It was de- 
termined by him to open a recruiting office in Hoboken, New Jersey, 
and Brevet Lieut. -Col. Ilges, of the regular army, then on recruiting 
duty in New York city, was detailed by the Adjutant General of the 
army to superintend the recruiting station in Hoboken, in addition to 
his regular duties in New York city ; and Captain Mills, at Newark, the 
Provost Marshal of the Fifth District of New Jersey, in which Hoboken 
is situated, was directed by me to credit such enlistments and musters as 
might be certified to him by Colonel Ilges. Colonel Ilges, without any 
order from me to that effect, — but following, I presume, the practice he 
had been pursuing in New York city, under the rules for recruiting the 
regular army, prescribed by another bureau, — required a deposit of 
$300 of the local bounty of each recruit, as a guarantee of the good faith 
of the enlistment, to be retained until the recruit was receipted for at 
General Rendezvous. 

Among the employees whom Colonel Baker called to his aid, in pur- 
suing his detective schemes, was one Theodore Allen, of New York, of 
whom I had never heard up to that time, and who figured in the affair, 
as was subsequently disclosed, in two capacities, viz. : as aid to Colonel 
Baker, in detecting and arresting the scoundrels who were swindling 
the people, the Government, and the recruits, and at the same time- 
participating, as a substitute broker, in the business which Colonel 
Baker's efforts were directed to expose and prevent. For, no sooner had 
the Hoboken recruiting office accomplished its purpose of securing the 
arrest by Colonel Baker of a large number of the most notorious bounty- 
jumpers, than the bounty-brokering firm of Allen, Hughes & Riley, 
doing business in New York city (Theodore Allen, senior partner), made 
the fictitious enlistment of these deserters for the purpose of their arrest 
the means of a fraud more stupendous than any single one previously 
detected. The bounty-jumpers in question — 183 in number — were en- 
listed by Colonel Ilges and arrested by Colonel Baker on the 10th of 
March, and were lodged in prison at Fort Lafayette on the night of the 
11th of March. Colonel Baker reported to me in person on the 13th of 
March, as shown by his letter of the 16th, in evidence. He then men- 
tioned the subject of crediting these men. I took the ground (see his 
letter of 16th), from which I never deviated, that such credit could not 
be made ; but the subject being only before me in a conversational and 
informal way, and constituting at that interview what seemed to be a 
very subordinate and unimportant part of the business going on, I took 
no further official action at that time relating to it, than to give Colonel 
Baker my views as expressed above. After his return to New York, 



42 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



Col. Baker wrote me two letters, under date of March 16 (in evi- 
dence), received on the 17th, from which I learned that Col. Ilges had 
credited these men on the quota of Jersey City. It was then necessary 
for me to act further in the premises, and I adopted the principle, as in 
other cases, that these bounty-jumpers, being held to the service of the 
United States by previous enlistments, could not be credited to any 
locality as new recruits, and thus deprive the army of men to the ex- 
tent of their number. I had ordered that the men be held as deserters, 
and I accordingly directed that they should not be credited to any 
locality, and as an inevitable consequence, I ordered that any money 
deposited for them with the recruiting officer be returned to the parties 
advancing it. This order I directed to be issued as soon as I received 
Colonel Baker's letters on the 17th, and the records in evidence show 
that it was in regular routine published, by one of my assistants, on the 
19th. The action taken in this matter was determined upon by me be- 
fore I saw Allen on the 18th, and neither by his presence or otherwise, 
did he in any manner influence it. Having thus disposed of the sub- 
ject, I discharged it from my mind, and when subsequently brought up, 
merely directed, as hereafter shown, a repetition of my orders. On the 
18th, as shown by one of my telegrams, Theodore Allen appeared in my 
office. He urgently requested that the men be credited, and stated that 
he would be subjected to great trouble and probable loss unless it was 
done. He entered into a con versatim regarding enlistment frauds gen- 
erally and was particularly severe on the frauds of the Utica district, 
denominating that place ' ' a perfect walk, ' ' in the cant phrase of the 
bounty-jumping fraternity. I told him that numerous reports received by 
me, through Colonel Baker and from other sources, stated the same thing; 
but that the Hon. Roscoe Conkling, the M. C. for that district, stoutly 
denied the existence of any frauds there, and maintained that the Pro- 
vost Marshal and Enrolment Board were entirely honest. Allen still 
asseverated his convictions of great frauds there, and said he knew 
Aaron Richardson, the broker there, and could easily find out all about 
it by going to Utica. At this time I was in the midst of pei-plexity 
about this district, the Board of Enrolment being under suspension. 

As Allen was still in the detective service of the bureau under 
Colonel Baker, I suggested to him that he should at once proceed to Utica, 
and get any facts available relating to the frauds or malpractices alleged 
to prevail there in the business of this bureau. I said nothing to him 
about connecting Roscoe Conkling with fraud, nor anything else about 
that person than what is herein before stated. Allen then left my office, 
and whether he went to Utica or not, I never knew, for he never re- 
ported anything to me ; and the only evidence I have that he ever visited 
that city is his incidental mention of the fact in his telegram of March 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 43 

24, and the statement wliich I do not remember to have heard until 
lately, that he was one of Colonel Baker's employees, who took part in 
the attempt to arrest Aaron Richardson, ttie bounty broker at Utica, 
which failed through the intervention of Mr. Roscoe Conkling. 

I never, to my knowledge, saw Allen after he left my office on the 
18th of March, until he appeared here as a witness. 

There was some delay by Colonel Ilges in complying with my order, 
to leturn the money to the parties who advanced it, arising, as it was 
said, from a mistake in the date of the enlistments as slated in my 
order. This was brought to my notice by Allen's telegram of March 
24. which I treated, as I would have done a similar report from any 
other person, that an order had not been obeyed, ^namely, repeated the 
order to the senior officer present — Colonel Baker ; gave the name of 
Theodore Allen for the I'eported faiJure to obey orders, and directed the 
senior officer (Colonel Baker) to see that the original order was com- 
plied with. The order, as repeated, was in specific terms, and almost 
verbatim each time, directing that the money deposited with Colonel 
Ilges for the recruits be returned to the parties advancing it. I did not 
know who those parties were, nor did I take pains to ascertain. I was 
overwhehned with other business, and this affair had then no special 
importance. Colonel Ilges, having received the money, was of course 
competent to decide to whom it should be paid under the order. I left 
that point to be decided without dictation or interference on my part. 
The money was paid back, on the 24th of March, to Allen, Hughes & 
Riley, they being the parties who advanced it. It is but just, however, 
to Colonel Ilges and myself, in this connection, to state that a letter 
addressed by him, under date of March 31, to Captain Wesley Owens, 
of my office, suggested the point that, if the money in question — $54,000 
— were paid back to the parties advancing it, injustice might be done 
to the cities and towns that had really furnished the money, which 
Allen, Hughes & Riley had advanced. This letter is shown to have 
been received by Captain Owens on the 28d of March, and, if it was 
submitted to me at all, it was, as all such correspondence at that time 
was, by brief or endorsement, for instructions as to how it should be 
answered. The official brief or endorsement showed only that it re- 
ferred to the same subject on which I had already promulgated a con- 
clusive order, and the answer, dated March 23, of Captain Owens to 
this communication merely repeats the order already given. I have no 
recollection of this letter having been submitted to me at all when re- 
ceived; but. if submitted, it was by its brief, which is as follows : 

" New York City, March 21, 1865. 
" GuiDO Ilges, Recruiting Officer, etc. 

" In reference to 183 men, mustered on the 10th of March, 1865, and 
credited to Jersey City. Done by order of Colonel L. C. Baker." 



44 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

As my official correspondence at that time was exceedingly volu- 
minous, covering hundreds of letters daily, and as every energy of my 
Bureau was strained to provide for anticipated need of men, which 
happily the foi'tunes of war relieved us from sending forward, it is 
quite obvious that it was impossible for me to read more than the 
briefest outline of the subject of each letter, and in many instances, 
not to read them at all, but trust them to be answered by some of the 
numerous well trained and efficient assistants whom the business of 
my office required to be on duty. I think it highly probable that Cap- 
tain Owens answered this letter without even troubling me with read- 
ing the endorsement. Such would have been proper on his part, an 
order on the subject having already been issued. But this point is im- 
material. 

On the 29th of March, however, the full force of Colonel Ilges' 
letter was brought to my attention by a personal interview with Hon. 
O. Cleveland, Mayor of Jersey City, who stated that the money paid 
back to Allen, Hughes & Riley, belonged in reality to Jersey City, and 
that such payment had imperiled, if not forfeited, the rights of that 
city. He urged me. therefore, with all the argument and entreaty 
which an earnest man could iise, to allow these men to be credited, in- 
sisting that, even if they were bounty-jumpers, Jersey City had paid 
for them in good faith through the money advanced by Allen. Hughes 
& Riley, and that, as by my decision the money had been returned to 
those men, I ought, in equity, to allow tlie credit, so as to relieve 
Jersey City. It seemed impossible for me, under the law, to allow 
these credits. The men were already in the military service, and my 
plain duty was to hold them as deserters. I did not hold my office as 
in any way responsible for the dealings between cities and bounty- 
brokers, and could not undertake to act as umpire in disputes of that 
character, arising so numerously throughout the loyal States; yet, 
having discussed these points with Mayor Cleveland, I told him that, 
owing to the peculiar circumstances surrounding this case, and espe- 
cially in view of the fact that the pressure of official engagements had 
prevented my appreciation of the suggestion in Colonel Ilges' letter of 
March 21st, I would use all the power of my Bureau in aiding him to 
recover the money from the hands of Allen, Hughes & Riley. I was 
the more ready and anxious to do this, because the facts narrated to 
me by Mayor Cleveland disclosed to me very clearly, for the first time, 
that Theodore Allen was acting a double part in the whole transac- 
tion. That, having been employed by Colonel Baker to induce a lot 
of bounty jumjjers to enlist, with a view to their arrest, he had, while 
playing this part with Colonel Baker, assumed an entirely different 
role with Mayor Cleveland, and had, as a bounty-broker, sold to him 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 45 

as legitimate recruits, the very same men whom, as a detective, lie had 
induced to enlist, to be entrapped as deserters. I learned further from 
Mayor Cleveland that the |300 for each recruit that was deposited with 
Colonel Ilges was not even a moiety of what he had paid to Allen & 
Riley; that he had paid them about .|700 per man, and that they had 
in all in their possession $126,000 of money belonging to Jersey City. 
These facts being revealed to me, I wrote to Colonel Baker immediately 
(March 29, see the letter in evidence) , instructing him to demand of 
Allen & Co. the restitution of the money to Jersey City — holding that, 
the men not being (;redited. it was wrong to take money in payment 
for them as recruits. Colonel Baker made this demand of Allen & 
Co., and they refused to restore the money. As soon as their re- 
fusal was known to me, I issued orders (by telegraph and letter, 
dated April 6, in evidence t for their arrest and confinement in the 
Old Capital Prison until the money was restored. Colonel Baker was 
charged with the execvition of this order; btit Allen and his partners, 
scenting danger, fled to Canada, and remained as fugitives until near 
the close of the year — my order for their arrest being all the time sus- 
pended over them and preventing their return to their homes. The 
men who thus held the money of Jersey City being beyond reach, the 
only alternative to be pursued by the mayor to adjust his accounts 
w^as to procure an order to allow these bounty-jumpers to be credited 
to Jersey City, and thus legalize the payment of the money, and as a 
repugnant, but necessary consequence, confirm the $126,000 in the 
possession of Allen and his partners in this ti*ansaction. Very great 
efforts were made from time to time to induce me to allow the credits, 
and while! appreciated the hardship which the train of circumstances 
had inflicted on Jersey City, I did not consider myself empowered 
with the discretion which would enable me to comply with the re- 
quest. I accordingly refused to do so, and stated the grounds of my 
refusal in an official report to the Secretary of War, dated October 25, 
1865 (in evidence). 

The case thus passed from my jurisdiction into the hands of my 
superior officer, who, in pursuance of the larger power which he could 
exercise in the premises, directed some months afterwards, in an or- 
der (in evidence) , that the credits be allowed to Jersey City. This 
might well have appeared to the Secretary as the only available mode 
of adjusting the matter and relieving the corporation of Jersey City 
from a difficulty in which it had become unfortunately, and I presume 
innocently, involved. As a Bureau officer, though I might have or- 
dered the credits without a question from anyone, I did not consider 
myself empowered with the authority in the matter which might be 
rightfully exercised by the Secretary of War. His authority in the 



46 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

case was absolute aud unquestioned, and at the time it was exercised 
it did not interfere in the least with the efficiency of the recruiting sys- 
tem. The credits bein^ thus allowed by the Secretary of War, my 
order for the arrest of Allen thereby fell to the ground, and I supposed 
I never should hear of the matter again. But Theodore Allen, smarting 
under the punishment I had inflicted on him, by making him a fugitive 
from justice and an absentee from his country for the better part of a 
year, appears here, at Mr. Conkling' s instance, as a witness against me, 
and swears that I agreed to release to him the $54,000, provided he 
would go to Utica and hunt up accusations that would, at all hazards, 
connect Mr. Conkling" s name with the recruiting frauds alleged to be 
going on at that point, — that 1 made this infamous proposition to him 
in my office, having sent my confidential clerk out of the room and 
put my hands upon his shoulders in a familiar way, and urged him to 
this course in the most persuasive manner. 

At the time Allen alleges this extraordinary proposition to have 
been made, let it be remembered that I had never seen him but once 
before, and had never heard of him until a few weeks previous. Let 
the probability of such a procedure on my part speak for itself, and let 
me recall the fact that my confidential clerk at that time, Mr. M. L. 
De Coursey, of Philadelphia, swears that he was on duty in my office 
on that day, where he was habitually stationed, and swears further 
that I never, on any occasion, asked him to leave the room for the pur- 
pose of holding a conversation with anyone, — his business being really 
to stay by and hear conversations and take note of anything worthy of 
record. He swore further, that if I had put my hands upon anyone he 
could not have failed to observe such an extraordinary proceeding. 

Allen does not pretend that he did report anything to me against 
Mr. Conkling, and on the hypothesis of his own wicked invention, he 
leaves me in the silly attitude of having agreed to release him the 
$54,000 on condition of hunting up something scandalous against Mr. 
Conkling, and then stupidly paying the money without getting what 
I bargained for. Even conceding that I was base enough to tender the 
$54,000 for defamatory accusations against Mr. Conkling, 1 submit 
that I was hardly weak enough to let the money go without getting 
something in return. Mr. Allen never subsequently reported anything 
to me about Utica, or about Mr. Conkling, or about anything else, and 
does not even pretend that he did ; he does not allege any reason for 
failing to report against Mr. Conkling, nor for any failure on my part 
to keep the agi'eement which he says I made. 

I am at a loss which to be most astonished at, the character of 
Allen's testimony, or the hardihood manifested in introducing him as a 
witne.ss. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



47 



Allen's whole statement is sufficiently disproved by the circum- 
stances and by the bald impossibilitv of such a reckless transaction on 
my part, and that, too, with one who was well-nigh a total stranger to 
me. The extravagance of the amount which Allen says, or intimates, 
was to be released to him on condition that he would defame Mr. 
Conkling at " all hazards.''' is another strong point against the truth 
of his allegation. Men who are depraved enough to do what Allen 
swears he was to do, can usually be hired for a small percentage of 
$54,000. And, in this connection, from a different standpoint, I may 
remark, that Mr. Conkling exaggerates his own importance when he 
imagines that anyone could afford $54,000 to hunt up accusations, 
either true or false, against him. He will have attained far more 
consequence than he has yet reached in public life, before a tithe of 
that sum could be profitably invested, even by a reckless and wicked 
enemy, in detracting from his reputation. 

It must be noted in examining Allen's testimony, that at the time 
he alleges I made this infamous bargain with him, I had never seen 
Mr. Conkling, — I had seen Allen but once before, — and Allen had 
never seen Mr. Conkling. We have Allen, then, in the attitude of a 
man on the stand swearing that, with a view to a pecuniary considera- 
tion, he had agreed to hunt up scandalous charges against one to whom 
he was a total stranger, — a confession which should at once discredit 
his testimony on all points. But the most extraordinary feature of 
this whole transaction is the fact that the very man whom he swears 
he agreed to defame " at all hazards," appears here as his patron, and 
asks the Committee to accept him as a credible witness, with whose 
testimony the reputation of another might be blackened. 

I have dwelt thus at length on this Hoboken affair and on the 
character of Theodore Allen, judged simply by the circumstances sur- 
rounding the case, and on the basis of his own testimony. I leave you 
to make a proper array of the weighty direct evidence affecting Allen's 
credibility as a witness. I will allude, however, to the following 
facts : 

1st. Colonel Wright Rives, U. S. Army, now acting as private 
secretary to the President of the United States, and serving on the 
staff of Major-General John A. Dix, in New York City, during the 
war, testified that he knew Theodore Allen, and that his reputation for 
ti'uth and veracity was bad, that he would not believe him under oath, 
and that he had heard Allen's character spoken of as bad by General 
Dix and by Colonel Van Buren and Major Joline, of General Dix's 
staff, and also by John A. Kennedy, Superintendent of Police in New 
York City. Mr. Kennedy's opinion of Allen is also contained in an 
official letter to General Dix, dated February 17, 1864, in which Mr. 



48 CONKLING AND BLAINB-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

Kennedy says : ' ' Theodore Allen has been known to the police of this 
city for at least ten years ; his reputation in the force is that of a thief. ' ' 
I send you an official copy of this letter, and if it has not been admitted 
as evidence, its pertinence will certainly insure it due weight before 
the Committee. 

Mr. Daniel Carpenjter, Inspector of Police in the City of New York, 
next in rank to Superintendent Kennedy, testified that Allen's reputa- 
tion was bad, and that he would not believe him under oath ; and 

Petty, Captain of Police, testified to the same thing, basing his testi- 
mony on a thorough know^ledge of Allen. 

Hotchkiss, a constable in the city of Washington, formerly a 
deputy sheriff in the City of New York, testified to knowing Allen, 
and that he would not believe him under oath. 

Testimony on this point, as you well know, could have been pro- 
duced for an indefinite period of time by the summoning of other 
witnesses; but, having secxired the testimony of gentlemen of the 
highest official rank and character, connected with the Police of New 
York, and others, I conceived it to be of no advantage to multiply 
witnesses on the same point, Mr. Conkling inti'oduced respectable 
witnesses, who swore that they would believe Allen under oath, a 
species of testimony not very conclusive as to the real character of the 
man and by no means an offset to the evidence against him, by men 
who are professionally enabled to know facts about such men as Allen, 
Indeed the bulk of the testimony inti'oduced by Mr. Conkling, to 
sustain Allen, only went to show that Allen's character was — among 
the most favorable — a subject of discussion, and that his real reputation 
and record with the Police were not so generally and widely known 
as to discredit him with everybody. 

Please urge upon the Committee, with the view of having it yet 
admitted in evidence, if that be possible, that Allen was convicted on 
his plea of guilty, of larceny (pocket picking) in the coiirt of Gereral 
Sessions in New York City, on the 4th of Febrviary, 1858, and tliat he 
was sentenced for this misdenaeanor to four months" imprisonment in 
the city prison of New York, A fully authenticated copy of the record 
of the trial and conviction of Allen, as above, was offered, but was 
ruled out by the Committee, because, as I understand, his general 
character was not in issue. 

Allen's own testimony respecting himself, elicited on cross-exami- 
nation, was simply this — that he was originally a butcher, became a 
dining-room employee, then kept a drinking shop, then kept a gam- 
bling house, and then entered upon the business of bounty brokerage. He 
admitted that during the time he was engaged in the bounty broker- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



49 



age. lie was confined several months in Fort Lafayette by order of Gen- 
eral Dix. 

You will please notice in your plea the allusions which Mr. Conk- 
ling has made to the fact that I have not offered myself for examina- 
tion as a witness in my own behalf. Why should I have done so, or 
how. with propriety and self-respect, could I have done so? My accu- 
sations against Mr. Conkling were specifically set forth in my letter, 
duly subscribed by me ; I did not consider that I should have added to 
the force of those accusations bj* offering to ^wear to their truth. I 
sought to prove their entire correctness by the evidence of official 
papers, and I think I have succeeded. I took the same ground, in effect, 
with regard to the testimony of Theodore Allen. I was not disposed 
from choice to place myself in the attitude of bandying contradictions 
with such a man as he. and I accordingly pursued the method of dis- 
proving his testimony by iwoducing official recoi'ds in refutation and. in 
addition thereto, proving that he was not to be believed on oath. You 
will not forget that the Committee was fully empowered to send for 
persons and papers, and could have called me on to the witness stand, 
had they desired my testimony in the investigation, ivMch they were 
directed by the House to make ; and you will further remember that 
you reminded Mr. Conkling of his power to call me at any time, and 
of my readiness to respond to his call or that of the Committee. 

I desire that you will urge upon the Committee the propriety of 
furnishing me w'^th the sj)ecific charges against me, which Mr. Conk- 
ling proposes to have investigated. I have been rigidly confined to the 
text of ray letter in the accusations 1 brought against Mr. Conkling ; 
and it is but fair that he should be made to specify, with distinctness, 
what he proposes to prove against me. Up to this time I have been 
favored only with general denunciation from that gentleman, and with 
high-sounding phrases about the ' ' carnival of corrupt disorder ' ' which 
prevailed in my Bureau in Western New York. He has not come to a 
specific charge against me, except in the Hoboken affair, and in this 
his whole case rests on the uncorroborated and fully impeached testi- 
mony of Theodore Allen. Obvious as the fact is. I desire you to press 
it on the attention of the Committee with earnestness, for 1 wish it to 
be made clearly manifest that Mr. Conkling has made himself the ally 
of Theodore Allen in this extraordinary affair. My request for a speci- 
fication of charges is respectfully urged, either in the event of this 
Committee continuing the investigation, or in the event of that labor 
being transferred to another tribunal. In either event, it is my i^lain 
right to know whereof I am accused. Mr. Coixkling avows that the 
accusations he has against me came to his knowledge nearly a year and 
a half ago, and had he then, while acting as Judge Advocate, or at any 



50 CONKLINGAND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

subsequent time, filed charges against me with the Secretary of War, 
that high official, with his known zeal for the purity of the public ser- 
vice, would undoubtedly have had them promptly investigated. That 
line of manly proceeding is still open to Mr. Conkling. He has the 
right as an American citizen to file charges against me as an officer of 
the army, and if the charges are not wholly frivolous and groundless, 
he well knows that an official inquiry would at once be made into their 
truth. 

You will not represent me to the Committee as in the least degree 
desirous that the investigation should no longer be prosecuted by them, 
for I have no desire to avoid a scrutiny which I am sure would be hon- 
orable and impartial, neither will you represent me as asking a Court 
of Inquiry, for, as I have already stated, no charges made by Mr. Conk- 
ling are deemed by me sufficiently grave to render this step on my part 
either necessary or desirable. 

It must be very obvious to every one, and yet I hope you will call 
it to the attention of the Committee, that it is easy to bring charges 
and ' ' railing accusations ' ' against a Bureau entrusted with duties so 
weighty and delicate, and in many respects so obnoxious as were 
those pertaining to my office. I was charged with the very difficult 
task of recruiting one of the largest, if not the very largest army ever 
marshalled by a Christian nation, and when voluntary enlistments 
were insufficient, it was my official duty to enforce a rigid conscrip- 
tion, and accompany these duties with the summary arrest of all de- 
serters from the ranks, and of all who sought to avoid the draft at 
home. These duties brought me into contact with the noblest of my 
countrymen and with the vilest also, and as a necessary consequence I 
received the ill will of the evilly disposed throughout the land: officers 
who were dismissed or otherwise punished for neglect of duty ; bounty- 
brokers imprisoned for cheating recruits; thieves and swindlers, ar- 
rested and punished tlu'ough my efforts, are, by their very natures, 
my enemies to-day. Theodore Aliens by scores, and possibly by hun- 
dreds, can be summoned to the witness stand by Mr. Conkling to swear 
to accusations as base and as gi'oundless as that to which Allen has made 
oath ; but I feel well assured that the clear records of my office will 
efifectually bear me out in good faith, and sustain the honor of my 
official character at all points. But, in addition to these records, I 
have the testimony of those highest in authority throughout the loyal 
States, and in no way under my control, certifying to the zeal, fidelity 
and ability with which I have discharged my responsible duties. This 
testimony, flattering in its terms, could only be referred to by me when 
forced to allude to unjustifiable assaults on my official reputation. 

In a conference with President Lincoln, at one of the trying and 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



51 



difficult crises of the war, when a draft was feared as a signal for riot 
in some places, I ventvired to complain to him of the obloquy which 
was sought to be attached to my name as the mere administrator of the 
law. • ' That is necessarily the case for the present, ' ' he replied ; " but 
it will be all right in the end. ' ' In that confidence I rest to-day, almost, 
if not quite, indifferent to the attacks which Hon. Roscoe Conkling or 
Mr. Theodore Allen, jointly or singly, may make upon me. 
I am, sir, very respectfully, 

Your obedient servant, 

JAMES B. FRY. 
Washington, D. C, June 25, 1866. 

My counsel, Mr. Riddle, had to make bis oral argu- 
ment the next evening, and all of the next day my 
letter was in the hands of the printer, so that Mr. 
Riddle had no opportunity to use it if he had desired 
to do so. I hoped that the letter would prove of ad- 
vantage to me with members of Congress to whom I 
sent it as soon as it was in print, but in this I was 
mistaken. So far as appeared the effect was decidedly 
unfavorable to me. The point that was uppermost in 
the minds of Congressmen in this affair seemed to be 
that the privilege of the House had been violated by 
my letter to Mr. Blaine in a way that deserved rebuke, 
and this letter to my counsel was regarded as repeat- 
ing or aggravating the offense, and as canvassing 
against the Committee in the House, and their indig- 
nation was heightened in proportion. 

No objection, however, was heard to the canvassing 
against me by Mr. Conkling and his counsel, Mr. 
Hotchkiss, both members of the House, possessing 
power not only to canvass, but to vote upon the case 
in which they were parties in interest. Though I felt 
some disappointment at the result of the letter, 
I did not regret having issued it, regarding it 



52 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

as sound and just if not politic. For two or three 
years I bad been under the pressure of great official 
labor, care and responsibility. The protracted and 
technical course of the investigation added to my 
burden, and it is literally true that when Mr. Conk- 
ling introduced Theodore Allen* as a witness upon 
the branch of the subject to which his testimony, if 
admissable at all, did not relate and could only injure 
me, and the Committee received the testimony, I, con- 
scious of my rectitude, and perhaps overestimating 
my strength, ceased to care much what conclusion the 
Committee reached. The Committee heard counsel 



* Allen's career has been consistent and remarkable. His latest ad- 
ventui-e is announced by the N. Y. Evening Post, July 10, 1891, from 
which the following abstract is made: "The" Allen, the gambler, dive- 
keeper and politician, who was stabbed in the back early this morning, 
is lying at his home, No. 246 West Forty-third Street, in a dangerous 
condition. The stabbing was in the "dive" at the south-west corner 
of Bleecker Street and South Fifth Avenue. 

Allen has long been one of the most notorious men in the city. He 
formerly kept the " Mabille," in Bleecker Street, near police head- 
quarters. Twelve or fifteen years ago, when he ran a faro bank at No. 
6 LI Broadway, he shot and killed his friend, Edward Molloy, who was a 
private detective, but niore of a gambler. 

The N. Y. -Sun of July 11, 1891, in an account of this affair says: 
' ' The ' ' Allen was the eldest of five brothers, sons of a reputable busi- 
ness man of the Eighth ward. All five have made unenviable reputa- 
tions. John, the second in age, is the only one of the family who has 
never heard a prison door closed behind him. " The" Allen has been in 
prison several times on minor charges. Once he was in the Tombs on an 
indictment for burglary. The complainant failed to appear and he was 
discharged. Again he was indicted for murder in the first degree for 
shooting" Eddie Molloy, a private detective and gambler. He was re- 
leased on bail and was never tried. The indictment is still pending. 
Martin Allen is now in Sing Sing serving a sentence imposed three years 
ago for pocket picking. Jesse Allen was killed by jumpingfrom a train 
in attempting to escape from custody. Wesley Allen, easily to be recog- 
nized by the patch that conceals the loss of his left eye, gouged out in a 
street fight, ssrved a term in the penitentiary for assault. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 53 

on the 26th of June, 1866. My counsel's argument 
was oral, as required, Mr. Conkling, as shown by the 
record, reading an argument instead of making an 
oral plea. 



Chapter IV. 

THE committee's REPORT. 

When the Committee reported, July 19, 1866, the 
House was in the frame of mind described by Justice 
Story, in his work on the Constitution, in which he says: 

" Public bodies, like private persons, are occasionally under the do- 
minion of strong passions and excitements ; impatient, irritable and 
impetuous. The habit of acting together produces a strong tendency to 
what, for the want of a better word, may be called the corporation spirit, 
or what is so happily expressed in a foreign phrase, V esprit de corps. 
Certain popular leaders often acquire an extraordinary ascendency over 
the body by their talents, their eloquence, their intrigues, or their 
cunning. 

"A legislative body is not prdinarily apt to mistrust its own powers, 
and far less the temperate exercise of those powers. As it prescribes 
its own rules for its own deliberations, it easily relaxes them whenever 
any pressure is made for an immediate decision. If it feels no check 
but its own will, it rarely has the firmness to insist upon holding a ques- 
tion long enough under its own view to see and mark it in all its bear- 
ings," etc. 

Mr.Thaddeus Stevens was leader or overseer of the 
House. He was a radical politician of bitter speech. 
The Congressman's privilege of saying what he pleases 
without accountability suited him exactly. He regarded 
my letter repelling the outrageous attack Mr. Conk- 
ling had made upon me as " causeless." The fact was 
before him that the charges against me had not been 
investigated. Nevertheless he contributed to the 
malign spirit of the occasion by saying : 

" All I have to say is I do not know that a more causeless, gross at- 
tack has ever been made upon a member of the House either here or 
elsewhere than that contained in that letter. I had hoped, however, 
that the Committee would go a little further in reference to the trans- 

54 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 55 

action mentioned in the report in which some hundreds of thousands: 
of dollars were absorbed by somebody. There were, if the evidence 
is to be believed, three parties implicated. Two of them, I believe, are 
now in the penitentiary. The third is General Fry. "Why is it that 
some steps have not been taken by the Committee to send him there ?'* 

Upon the same occasion, when denouncing my let- 
ter to Mr. Blaine, Mr. Stevens said : 

"I must do the gentleman from Maine, now absent, the justice to 
suppose that he^was entirely uninformed of the contents of the letter or 
he never would have presented it to the House." 

This is a sample of the "justice" members of the 
House may do each other on questions between them 
and outsiders. Mr. Blaine having presented my letter 
as his proof that he was not guilty, as charged by Mr. 
Conkling, of having made a "false" statement, Mr. 
Stevens does Mr. Blaine the "justice" to suppose that 
Mr. Blaine was entirely uninformed of the terms and 
force of the proof which he presented in his own de- 
fence. This is about the same as if the leader of the 
House had said that if necessary to transfer blame 
from Mr. Blaine to me, he would assume that his fel- 
low-member, one of the smartest men the country has 
ever produced, was a fool. Such was " the corpora- 
tion spirit," or Vesprit de corps^ of the House men- 
tioned by Justice Story. 

Speaking of the letter to niy counsel, heretofore 
given, Mr. Shellabarger said on the floor of the House : 

"And there is another statement here that is equally singular, consid- 
ering all the circumstances of the case. He [General Fry] says : ' I 
formally applied to the Committee for a copy of the record, the testi- 
mony having been phonographically reported, and offered to pay the 
expenses of transcribing it, but was refused. ' Now it will occur to 
every member of the House," continued the Chairman, " that it would 
be a very singular request to make of a Committee of the House, whose 
proceedings are confidential and not to be disclosed except by leave of 



56 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

the House, that it should be required to let its evidence go out into 
the town, into the offices of lawyers, and to be hawked about the 
streets. I am surx)rised that a statement of the character read should 
be made, under all the circumstances, by General Fry." 

In the same debate a member defined me as " the 
person on trial." In the feeling and judgment of the 
House, the request of the person on trial for a copy of 
the record of his case was a matter for reprobation. 

My counsel failed in his efforts to get an important 
and respectful petition before the House (see Appen- 
dix C) relating to letters which he said "are most 
material to a right understanding of that part of the 
case, and these are two of a series of some twenty- 
three papers, all offered, as will be shown in evidence 
on the part of General Fry, and all competent and im- 
portant evidence. It will be found difficult to cor- 
rectly judge of material portions of the Conkling-Fry 
case in the absence of these papers, as they contain 
the whole of General Fry's evidence on the points 
they refer to," and which letters the Committee denied 
ever having seen, though they had been duly laid be- 
fore it. 

In the condition indicated by the foregoing re- 
marks, the House heard the Committee's report, but 
knew nothing of the testimony. 

In the first debate (April 24) Mr. Blaine said he 
was " in a very weakly condition." His health did 
not improve, and a day or two before the Committee 
reported to the House, he was forced, by sickness, to 
go to his home in Maine. In his absence there was no 
one in the House to make a stand against the Com 
mittee's report. Mr. Pike defended Mr. Blaine, his 
colleague, as well as he could, but he did not defend 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 5T 

rue.* On the contrary, he said, speaking of me, " I do 
not propose to defend him. I only speak of the part 
my colleague had in the transaction. He generously 
defended Gen. Fry as he would any friend he deemed 
unjustly assailed, and Gen. Fry furnished him the 
letter expressly to be read in the House." Mr. Went- 
worth said, " Have you seen Gen. Fry ? " Mr. Pike re- 
plied, " I have not ; I have had no communication v^ith 
him." The " breach of privilege," as shown by the de- 
bate, was then the point at issue, and Mr. Pike directed 
his efforts to transferring the responsibility for it to 
me. He confessed that he had not been in communi- 
cation with rne concerning the letter, and I assume his 
statements were without Mr. Blaine's authority or 
knowledge, for Mr. Blaine never denied, so far as I 
know, that he, not I, was responsible for the reading 
of the letter in the House. But the point success- 
fully made by Mr. Pike was, that as the letter was 
read fi-oni the Clerk's desk, Mr. Blaine was not guilty 
of breach of privilege. He said, " The House can 
judge whether there was any invasion of its dignity 
when all the members consented to have the letter 
read to them ; certainly my colleague did nothing but 
vrhat was fair and manly. The House cannot com- 
plain if they failed to object to the reading of what 
they desired to hear." The action of the House was a 
practical if not formal adoption of Mr. Pike's point, that 
the House itself was responsible for the breach of priv- 
ilege. It being true, as Mr. Pike said, that "the House 
cannot comj)lain if they failed to object to the reading 
of what they wanted to hear," is it not equally true 

* The debate is given in full. Appendix D. 



58 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

that the House could not consistently complain of the 
writing of the thing which, according to Mr. Pike and 
the action of the House, they wanted to hear read ? 

In this debate in the House, aside from Mr. Pike's 
defence of Mr. Blaine, the point at issue was not the 
difficulty between Mr. Conkling and Mr. Blaine, but 
was whether I had violated the privileges of the 
House. The Committee, as the Chairman stated, had 
considered the " important question of the privileges 
of the House, and of a member of it." 

The Chairman said in the House : 

" The Committee,. as has already been noticed, have confined their 
investigation to the question of privilege affecting the rights of the gen- 
tleman from New York (Mr. Conkling). The Committee, so confining 
its investigations, deemed it fair and proper that the gentleman from 
New York should control the matter of the introduction of testimony 
affecting his personal privilege, subject of course to the right of the 
Committee to take care of the right and the privileges of the House." 

Mr. Davis said : 

" The question, Mr. Speaker, is one of grave importance, affecting 
the right of a member of this House to utter his sentiments and opin- 
ions without being confronted by a libel upon his private or public 
character, read at the Clerk' s desk at the suggestion of a member upon 
the floor. " "I repeat, ' ' said the Chairman of the Committee, ' ' what 
has been said in the report, that a more careful and moi'e malicious 
and wanton violation of the privileges of the House, and of its mem- 
bers, has not been brought to the notice of any member of the Com- 
naittee. ' ' 

The Committee's report was unanimous, and no 
one present in the House, except the Committee, Mr. 
Conkling and his counsel, Mr. Hotchkiss, had 
knowledge of the testimony on which it was based, or 
of the way that testimony had been understood and 
construed. Mr. Blaine was the only one in my inter- 
est who had information, and he was absent, sick. The 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 59 

report was adopted by the House almost unanimously, 
the vote being, yeas 96, noes, 4. As the occasion was an 
exciting one, and the House was well filled, it is note- 
worthy that the record shows "not voting 82." Mr. 
Conkling did not vote, but Mr. Hotchkiss, his counsel, 
voted for the adoption of the Committee's report. 

The report of the Committee is given in full in 
Appendix D. It completely exonerates Mr. Conk- 
ling, pronounces the statements I made against him to 
be wholly without foundation, palliation, or excuse, 
and says that I, in writing the letter to Mr. Blaine, 
was guilty of a gross violation of Mr. Conkling's privi- 
leges as a member of the House. 

It will be remembered that Mr. Blaine allegred in 
the House, in explanation of Mr. Conkling's attack 
upon me, that there wei'e differences between Mr.Conk- 
ling and me, in which Mr. Conkling came out second 
best, and Mr. Conkling pronounced the statement 
" false." That was the open issue between them. In 
the next debate, Mr. Blaine had my letter read in the 
House as proof (and he offered no other proof) that 
his statement, which Mr. Conkling had pronounced 
" false," was true. Notwithstanding the logic of the 
situation, the House did nothing to Mr. Blaine upon 
his apparent conviction. If the statements in my let- 
ter are without foundation, as reported by the Com- 
mittee, Mr. Conkling's victory over both Mr. Blaine 
and me is complete. But the Committee's finding is 
erroneous and unjust. 

Their record shows that they investigated only 
my statements against Mr. Conkling. No allegation 
was made of breach of privilege, but as it turned out 



60 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

I was convicted of that offence, and sentenced 
witliout knowing that I was being tried. Like the 
Court martial which tried a private for desertion, and 
found the Captain who preferred the charge guilty of 
stealing a pack saddle, the Committee tried Mr. Conk- 
ling on my charge concerning his rights, duties and 
services as a special army Judge Advocate, and found 
me guilty of breach of privilege of the House of 
Kepresentatives. 

My letter to Mr. Blaine was founded upon and 
was accompanied by a sei'ies of official documents. As 
these documents were read in the House, and pub- 
lished with the letter in the Congressional Glohe, they 
were before the Committee in the same way that the 
letter to which they belonged was. Yet the Commit, 
tee, omitting them from their report and failing, so far 
as appears, to notice the official documents upon which 
my letter was founded, report the letter as " wholly 
without foundation in truth." That this finding is 
erroneous and unjust I shall now proceed to show by 
an examination in detail of the Committee's record and 
report. 



Chapter V. 

THE COMMITT 

My letter is given in full in Appendix B. It is 
free from ambiguity or hidden significance. With its 
accompanying documents it affords sufficient evidence 
of its own substantial truth if taken in its plain mean- 
ing. The Committee, however, attributed to state- 
ments made by me a meaning which I never intended, 
or even thought of, and pronounce the statements un- 
true in that meaning. This action of the Committee 
makes a minute examination of their report necessary ; 
and I, therefore, take up the important paragraphs in 
order from beginning to end. 

The Committee say : 

' ' The first statement of the letter of General Fry to be investigated 
under the rule adopted by the Committee is as follows: 

" 'In the summer of 1863 Mr. ConMing made a case for himself by 
telegi-aphing to the War Department that the Provost Marshal of his 
district required legal advice, which he was hereupon empowered to 
give.' 

"The Committee understand this charge to be that Mr. Conlding 
secured his own employment pi;ofessionally by the Department, by tele- 
graphing that the Provost Marshal of his district required legal ad- 
vice, and that his motive and object in transmitting the dispatch was 
to secure such employment. Unless this is the meaning of the words of 
the letter, there is no significance at all attached to th.em, in the con- 
nection in which they are used. ' ' 

In the phrase above quoted, there is no hidden 
meaning. It was immediately preceded by the remark 
that, in consequence of the difficulty between Mr. 
ConMing and myself, I proposed to give an account in 
detail of Mr. C's connection with my bureau. I, there- 

. 61 



62 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

fore, naturally began with the circumstances stated as 
the first of any importance in that history. ' What 
right has the Committee to " understand " that I 
charged that Mr. Conlding'8 ^^ motive and olyjecV in 
transmitting a dispatch was to secure for himself pro- 
fessional employment, and then to pronounce that I 
have falsified because they find no such motive on Mr. 
Conhling''s part? 

Now, without any reference to the understanding 
of the Committee as to what was meant, let us see 
whether the proof does or does not sustain the state- 
ment, which is the thing the Committee was ordered 
by the House to examine into. 

What occasioned the employment of Mr. Conhling 
as counsel in that case ? Simply the fact that he tele- 
graphed to the War Department that an attachment 
had been issued against the Provost Marshal of his dis- 
trict for refusing to obey a writ of liaheas corpus, and 
asks, " What shall we do ? " the District Attorney and 
his assistant are absent. 

The writ of habeas corpus, he says, was issued "in 
the absence of all of us who coidd aid him profession- 
ally.'''' All this is said after at least one " who could 
aid him professionally " had returned, for Mr. Conk- 
ling''s dispatch is sent by him from Utica (but the 
law officers of the government ai-e still absent), and he 
says, " What shall we do f " 

Here is the entire dispatch : 

' ' In the absence of all of us who could aid him professionally, the 
Provost Marshal here was served with a haheas corpus to produce a deserter ; 
(he obeyed the order not to produce), and so returned. The judge held 
this insufficient, and issued attachment. He telegraphed the District 
Attorney and his assistant, ' ' they are absent and engaged — what shall 
we do ? " (Signed) ' ' R. CONKLING. ' ' 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



63 



Now, how did the Secretary of War understand 
that dispatch ? As it was addressed in the line of 
his official duty to the Secretary, an able lawyer, it is 
presumed he understood its meaning. Here is his 
reply : 

"Circular No. 36, from this office, of July 1, in regard to desert- 
ers, must be sustained. The Secretary of War desires you to act as coun- 
sel in behalf of the United States, in case of litigation growing out of 
the action of the Provost Marshal at Utica, as iweaented in your dispatch 
of this date. 

" Please show this dispatch to the Provost Marshal. 

(Signed) "JAMES B. FRY, 

•' Pro. Mar. Oeneral.'''' 

Let any sound and candid mind say whether or 
not this sustains the statement that, in the summer of 
1863, Mr. Conhling telegraphed to the Department 
that the Provost Marshal of his district required legal 
advice, and that he was empowered to give it, and 
that thereby he made a case for himself. The Com- 
mittee seek his motives — I did not. 

Upon the foregoing statement of facts, the Com- 
mittee remark as follows : 

' ' Tt will be observed that the dispatch does not inform the Secre- 
tary of War that the Provost Marshal required legal advice, but was a 
succinct statement of the actual state of facts, and a request that the 
Secretary should dii'ect what should be done in an emergency which 
excited the apprehensions of the friends of the government. In the 
opinion of the Committee, Mr. ConUing did only what he was fully 
justified in doing in this matter, and there is no evidence tending, 
however remotely, to show that in sending the dispatch he was influ- 
enced by any merely personal motive. ' ' 

This extraordinary commentary is of importance 
here only as indicating the system of reasoning which 
enabled the Committee to arrive at the conclusions 
they have reached on other and more important points 
in this controversy, and for this purpose it is noticed. 



64 CONKLING AND BLAINK-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

The Committee say " the dispatch does not in- 
form the Secretary of War that the Pi'ovost Marshal 
required legal advice." It is true, however, that the 
Secretary of War so understood it, and in consequence 
of it, and upon the instant, furnished " legal advice." 

It does say, substantially, that in the absence of 
" all of us " who could aid the Provost Marshal pro- 
fessionally (that is, give him legal advice, the neces- 
sity for which must be presumed), the Provost Mar- 
shal was served with a writ of habeas coipus. The 
inference is, that if the persons meant by "«// of ns^^ 
had not been absent, the writ woukl not have issued ; 
or, if it had issued, some one or more of " all of us " 
would have rendered professional assistance — that is, 
given needed legal advice. But now one of us has re- 
turned ; the case has become more important than be- 
fore, because, having had no counsel to advise him, the 
Provost Marshal disobeyed the writ, and an attach- 
ment having issued against his person, he now needs 
legal advice more than ever. The District Attorney 
and his assistant are both absent. I, a lawyer, one 
"who could aid him professionally," as you will see 
by this dispatch, am here on the spot. " What shall 
we do ? " 

The Secretary of War understood this language^ 
and I, in fact, merely adopted the Secretary's con- 
struction, wdiich construction Mr. ConkUng, by accept- 
ing the retainer and performing the duties it enjoined, 
adopted, corroborated and confirmed. 

The Committee say, " Mr. ConkUng did only what 
he was fully ' Justified in doing,' " and then proceed to 
defend his motive in sending the dispatch. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 65 

As before said, I had not questioned either the 
right or propriety of Mr. OoiiMing to use all honorable 
means to procure professional employment, and had in 
no way assailed his motives in this particular instance. 
The offensive phrase is " that he made a case for 
himself." Does the Committee pretend that anybody 
understood the meaning to be that Mr. Conkling manu- 
factured the case for the sake of receiving employ- 
ment? Certainly not. Even Mr. ConMinrfs argu- 
ment does not claim that. All that is said, and all 
that is meant is, that a case having arisen, he notified 
the person who was authorized to employ counsel, on 
account of which notification he was employed, and 
thus '^ made a case for himself," and in no other sense 
can this phi'aseology, which the Committee style the 
charge^ be construed. 

The next statement of the Committee's Heport is 
as follows : 

''In April, 1865, Mr. Chnrhs A. Dana, then Assistant Secretary 
of War. without notifying me, had Mr. Conl'ling appointed to investi- 
gate all frauds in enlistments in western New York, with the stipula- 
tion that he should be commissioned Judge Advocate for the prosecu- 
tion of any cases brought to trial, and he was appointed to prosecute 
before a General Court Martial Major J. A . Haddock. 

' ' Mr. Dana vested him, by several orders issued in the name of 
the Secretary of War, without the sanction of Mr. btanton, with the 
most exti'aordinary powers. Among these was the right to examine 
the dispatches in all the telegraph offices in the western division of 
New York, which enabled a violation of the sanctity of personal and 
business correspondence. 

' ' In another part of the letter Mr. Dana is spoken of as the friend 
of Mr. ConMing ; and the Committee understand the imputation of this 
portion of the letter to be, that Mr. Dana, of his own motion, without 
notice to General Fr-y, and without the sanction of the Secretary of 
War, and by some management or understanding between Mr. Dana 
and Mr. ConMing, appointed Mr. ConMing to investigate frauds in en- 



66 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

listments in western New York, and vested him with extraordinary 
powers." 

Here aofain tlie Committee substitute their under- 
standing for the statements actually made. 

The Resolution of the House raising the Commit- 
tee, directs them " to inquire into the ' statements ' of 
General Fry's letter." The Committee did not do 
this ; if they had, the statements would have been 
found substantially correct. But they attributed to 
the statements a meaning never intended by me, and 
not justified by the language used, and then pro- 
nounced the statements false, because, as they say, the 
testimony does not prove this meaning. 

As the House ordered the " statements " them- 
selves to be inquired into, the Committee's under- 
standing need be neither admitted nor denied ; but if, 
upon examination of the " statements," the proof 
sustains them, the fact that the Committee understand 
me to say something else, does not make it necessary 
for me to prove what I never said. 

I did say that : 

" In April, 1865, Mr. Charles A, Dana, then Assistant Sec- 
retary of War, without notifying me, had Mr. ConMing appointed 
to investigate all frauds in enlistments in western New York, 
with the stipulation that he should be commissioned Judge Advo- 
cate for the prosecution of any cases brought to trial, and he was 
so appointed to prosecute before a General Court Martial Major J. A. 
Hadclod'. Mr. Dana vested him (Mr. Conhling) by several orders issued 
in the name of the Secretary of War, without the sanction of Mr. 
Stanton, with the most extraordinary powers. Among these was the 
right to examine the dispatches in all the telegraph offices in the west- 
ern division of New York, which enabled a violation of the sanctity of 
personal and business correspondence." 

Is the statement true ? 

Now, as to the first point, did Mr. Dana have Mr. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 67 

ConMing appointed ? A series of letters from Mr. 
Conhling to Mr. Dana, touching the Utica office, is in 
evidence. All papers relating to Mr. ConMing were 
signed by Mr. Dana. Mr. Dana was present in 
. person at the Haddock Court Martial, and when I was 
called by Mr. Dana to his office in Washington in ref- 
erence to the frauds, I found Mr. ConMing present. On 
Sunday, Mr. Dana and Mr. ConMing wqyq consulting in 
Mr. Dana\ office. Mr. ConMing was writing to Mr. 
Dana — not to the Secretary of War — his opinion of 
me, and the well-known intimate personal and political 
relations existing between Mr. ConMing and Mr. Dana 
produced the impression on my mind that Mr. Dana 
had exerted himself to secure the appointment of Mr. 
ConMing to investigate the frauds in western New 
York, particularly as the officers appointed on Mr. 
ConMing''s recommendation were implicated in these 
frauds, and Mr. ConMing was seeking the restoration 
of officers who had been suspended from duty. 

Now, as to the second point in the statement, did 
I have notice of Mr. ConMing s appointment to inves- 
tigate all frauds in enlistment in western New York ? 
The Committee say (page 5*) that it appears from the 
testimony of Dana that I did ; but, on referring to 
Dana 8 testimony, it will be seen that he states (page 
107) as follows: 

" General Fry was informed by me that the Secretary of War 
had employed Mr. Conhling to prosecute Major Haddock. ' ' 

There is no statement in the testimony of Dana, 

* The page references throughout this review of the Committee's Ee- 
port are to the Pub. Doc. , House of Eep. , Thirty-ninth Congress, First Ses- 
sion 



68 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

or any other witness, that I was notified that Coiihling 
had been appointed " to investigate all cases of fraud 
zn loestern New Yorh and all misdemeanors connected 
^uitli recruiting,'''' nor that he was authorized, in the 
language of tlie Committee (page 5), ''to prefer 
charges or proofs against others besides Majoi' Had- 
dochy All that Dana testifies to, on this point, is, 
that he informed me that Conkling had been author- 
ized to prosecute Haddoch. He does not pretend that 
he notified me that Conkling had been appointed to 
investigate all cases of fraud and misdemeanor in 
western New York. And his answer, when ques- 
tioned on that point, shows that I was not notified of 
that appointment, for he says: "Thei'e was never any 
occasion to make it known '; I gave General Fry the 
Secretary's orders to him; there was no occasion to 
inform General Fry what other orders the Seci'etary 
had directed me to give" (page 117). Nor do I state 
that Conkling was appointed to prosecute Haddock 
without notice to ms, but my language is, " without 
notifying me, Mr. Conkling was appointed to investi- 
gate all frauds in enlistments in western New York." 
(See written authority of April 3, page 3.) 

It was this general authority to investigate the 
affairs of my bureau in western New York which I 
said was conferred without notifying me. I did not 
deny being informed "that the Secretary of War had 
employed Conkling to prosecute Mcijor Haddock^ 
That appointment was announced in printed orders 
and was known to all concerned. The very ]3oint 
which made the case peculiar, was, that I was notified 
that Mr. Conkling was to prosecute Haddock, but was 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 69 

left in ignorance of the much greater power conferred 
upon hini to investigate all frauds, etc., in western 
New York. 

The next point in this statement is, that the 
appointment contained " a stipulation that ConJding 
should be commissioned Judge Advocate for the 
prosecution of any cases brought to trial, and he was 
appointed to prosecute before a General Court Mar- 
tial Major (I. A. Haddock I'"' 

It is believed that this portion of the letter is 
not disputed by the Committee. Its truth is appar- 
■ent from an inspection of the written appointment 
itself, and Mr. Stanton set out a copy of the appoint- 
ment in his testimony (page 124), yet the Committee 
branded my statement as false in that part of their re- 
port in which they say none of the charges have any 
foundation in truth. 

The next point in my statement is, that Mr. Dana 
vested Mr. Oonhling, "by several orders issued in the. 
name of tlie Secretary of War, without the sanction 
•of Mr. Stanton, with the most extraordinary powers," 
and the followino- are referred to : 

"WAR DEPARTMENT, 

"Washington City, April 3, 1865. 
" Hon. Bosroe Conkling having been appointed by the Secretary of 
War to investigate transactions connected with recruiting in the west- 
ern division of New York, all telegraph companies and operators are re- 
spectfully requested to afford him access to any dispatches which he 
may require for the purpose of detecting frauds and bringing criminals 
to trial. 

' ' By order of the Secretary op War : 

(Signed) " C. A. DANA, 

^^ Assistant Secretary of War. ^^ 

The Committee say I had no foundation in truth 



70 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



for saying that these powers were extraordinary, and 
were conferred without the sanction of the Secretary 
of War. The Committee have decided that the whole 
of Mr. Conkling\ duty was to act as Judge Advocate 
in the trial of Major Haddock.^ This was while the 
war was still going on, at a period when the telegraph 
was controlled by the Government, and when a re- 
quest in relation to it from the War Department was 
intended and received as an order, just as a request 
would be for an engine or a train on a railroad of 
which the Government had taken possession. Would 
the request in either case be refused ? Mr. Stantoii, 
the Secretary of War, says (page 123) : ^^ If the appli- 
cation had been necessary^ I should have given him an 
order authorizing him to seize wpon any information 
or dispatches that would have enabled him to detect 
the frauds in recruiting, the 'bounty jumping, etc., 
that were depleting our army." That is to say, if Mr. 
Stanton had thought more authority " necessary," he 
would have granted it. 

But the Committee construed this written au- 
thority to be simply " an authority to request " (page 
118), from which it must follow that, if Mr. Conhling 
had not received it, he would have had no right to re- 
quest the telegraph operators to show him dispatches ; 
but, having received it, he was clothed with authority 
that empowered him to ask a favor, which the party 
asked was at liberty to refuse. This is sheer nonsense. 
The War Department did not resort to dodges of that 
sort. Could not he have ^^ requested,^'' in that meaning 
of the term, as well without the authority as with it ? 

f But Mr. Conkling^s services as Special Judge Advocate were ren- 
dered after the war had closed. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 71 

But was it extraordinary, or was it the ordinary,, 
authority given to a Judge Advocate ? I termed it 
" extraordinary," and the Committee say my statement 
is false. 

I did not deem it necessary to bring proof before 
the Committee on this 23oint, but the assertion is ven- 
tured that the records of the War Department do not 
show a similar delegation of authority to any person. 

But suppose this all to be untrue, and that it had 
been the rule of Mr. Stanton to delegate this author- 
ity, would it not still be an extraordinary power, so 
far as it related to everybody else, and only justifiable, 
if at all, by the condition of the country at that 
period ? And was it not truthfully styled " extraor- 
dinary "? 

Is it claimed that the. people of the loyal state 
of New York, remote from the seat of war, protected 
by the provision of the Constitution of the United 
States, which guarantees that " the right of the peo- 
ple to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and 
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures^ 
shall not be violated," are liable to have their pi-ivate 
correspondence examined and confidential messages 
read by the agents of the War Department, except, if 
at all, upon " extraordinary " occasions, or for some 
" extraordinary " cause ? Does not the observation of 
every man teach him that this power is most extraor- 
dinary, even if it had been exercised habitually by 
Mr. Stanton, or any other officer durins; his official 
career ? 

The Committee say I falsified in saying this was 
"without the sanction of Mr. Stanton^ The only tes- 



72 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



timony on this point is Mr. Sta?itoii's, as follows (page 
123): "In regard to tlie two other papers —one in 
relation to telegraph companies, and the other in re- 
gard to Provost Marshals —those are authorities 
which I do not remember to have seen, until I saw 
them in this publication." — (^Daily Glohe^ May 1, 
1866.) 

If, then, Mr. Stanton did not even see these orders 
for more than a year after their issue, although he may 
have subsequently approved them, is it not true that 
they were issued without Mr. StaMon^s sanction, just 
as I stated ? 

But my statements, and the Committee's under- 
standing of them, are very different things. At the 
beginning of the investigation, I knew what " the 
statements " were, but the Committee did not, until 
its report was published, favor me with their under- 
standing of them ; and the subtile and unusual char- 
acter of that understanding will justify me in not hav- 
ing anticipated it. Such proofs, therefore, as I intro- 
duced were directed to the statements, and not to the 
construction the Committee put upon them after the 
investigation closed. 

But as to the construction just quoted. The 
Committee say (page 3): " In another part of the letter 
Mr. Dana is spoken of as the friend of Mr. ConMiiig ' 
and the Committee tinder stand the imputation of this 
portion of the letter to be, that Mr. Dana, of his own 
motion, without notice to General Fry^ and without 
the sanction of the Secretary of War, and by some 
management or understanding between Mr. Dana and 
Mr. ConMing, appointed Mr. Qonkling to investigate 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



73 



frauds in enlistments in western New York, and 
vested him with extraordinary powers." 

An examination of the letter itself is the true 
test of its meanino;. In the entire letter there is no 
word, phrase, or sentence that can be tortured into 
such interpretation as the Committee, in the exercise 
of their understanding, have seen fit to adopt, and 
on which they base an allegation of untruthfulness 
on my part. 

The letter does not state that "Mr. Dana ap- 
pointed Mr. ConMing on his own motion," nor is it 
susceptible of that construction ; nor does it state, in 
terms or by implication, that " Mr. Dana, without 
the sanction of the Secretary of War, appointed Mr. 
ConMing.'''' 

On the other hand, the language of the letter is, 
that " Mr. Dana had him appointed,^^ that is, through 
the representations and ministrations of Mr. Dana, the 
Secretary of War appointed Xnir. If 1 had intended 
to convey the meaning which the Committee state as 
their understanding, I would have used language to 
that effect. If I had meant to say that " Mr. Dana 
appointed Mr. ConMing,'''' I would not have said, " Mr. 
Dana had Mr. (7(9??X&^ appointed," which means that 
some one else appointed him. If I had meant to say 
that "Mr. Dana appointed Mr. ConMing,'^ I would 
not have accompanied the statement with a copy of 
the appointment itself, bearing on its face the fact 
that the Secretary of War appointed Mr. ConMing. 

Yet the Committee understand that I said, " Mr. 
Dana, on his own motion, and without the sanction of 
the Secretary of War, appointed Mr. ConMing,''^ and 



74 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



because I did not anticipate this understanding ^ and at- 
tempt to prove it true, they decide that I failed to 
prove what I did say, and then they proceed to char- 
acterize " the conduct of an officer in sending a letter 
to be read in the House which reflects upon an honor- 
able member." 

In the paragraph of the letter in which it is al- 
leged that "Mr. Dana had Mr. Conkling appointed," I 
did say tliat " Mr. Dana vested Mr. Conkling with ex- 
traordinary powers," and that this was done " without 
the sanction of the Secretary of War," and the testi- 
mony fully sustains this statement, but I never said 
that ''^Datia^ on his own motion," or " without the sanc- 
tion of the Secretary of War," or " by some manage- 
ment or understanding between Mr. Dana and Mr. 
ConMing^'' appointed Mr. Conhling to investigate 
frauds in western New York ; and the language used 
does not admit of any such meaning or interpretation. 

The Committee next proceed to discuss that para- 
graph of the letter in which it is stated that Mr. Conk- 
ling "was as zealous in preventing prosecutions at 
Utica as in making them at Elmira." As " specifica- 
tions " to this charge, the Committee assume three 
statements made in the letter. It is not strange that 
the Committee should deem an explanation of this 
assumption necessary, and they try to put it in the 
form of an argument by saying, " the words, as here- 
after shown, as they appear in connection in General 
Fry^s letter, that Mr. Conkling was as zealous in pre- 
venting prosecutions at Utica as in making them at 
Elmira, must refer to the three specifications above 
given, because, unless shown in one or the other of these 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



75 



specifications, it is not shown at all in General Fry*s 
letter," etc. 

The truth is, that the facts contained in the three 
statements referred to formed a jpart of the evidence 
on which the charge of zeal in preventing prosecutions 
was made ; but they were not shaped in the letter to 
support that charge, and had weight in doing so only 
so far as they might be considered in connection with 
other facts, especially the documents which accom- 
panied my letter, as was shown to the Committee dur- 
ing the investigation, and by the summing up of coun- 
sel. 

The manner in which the Committee weighed 
them will be noticed further on ; but here let us no- 
tice these specifications as they were used in the letter. 
Here they are, with the statements which immediately 
precede and follow them : 

" As to the animus of Mr. Co/iZ/iw/z's calumnious assault on me, it 
is true, notwithstanding his assertion that he had no personal quarrel 
with me, that the differences between him and myself arose altogether 
from my unwillingness to gratify him in certain matters in which he 
had a strong personal interest. It is true, also, that he was foiled in 
his efforts to obtain undue concessions from my Bureau, and to dis- 
credit me in the eyes of my superiors. 

' ' There have been three main issues between Mr, ConMing and 
myself. The first arose in consequence of the removal of Captain Bich- 
ardson, (the first Provost Marshal of Mr. OoiiHing^s district), upon a 
report of Judge Advocate Turner that the proofs in his case disclosed a 
reckless persistence in fraudulent practices. Mr. ConUing complained 
of my action, both to the President and War Department, hut failed 
to procure any mod iji cation of my course, 

''The second issue was, as to the restoring of Captain Crandall 
(the second Provost Marshal of the district), after I had secured his re- 
moval from duty, on the recommendation of Major Luddington, who 
thoroughly inspected the district, and reported that, though not legally 
guilty, he had morally perpetrated a most glaring and inexcusable 
fraud on the government he was sworn to serve, and that he had quieted 



76 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

his conscience by casuistry, and regulated his actions by the counsel 
of unscrupulous legal advisers. Mr. GonMing failed to get Captain 
Crandall restored and the officer selected hy ine continued in charge of the 
business until the office was closed. 

' ' The third issue was as to the government employing counsel to 
defend Captain Crandall, after he had been relieved and Kad carried 
away with him, in violation of the orders of the Department, some 
twenty thousand dollars local bounty, deposited with him in behalf of 
recruits, and in regard to which he had got into litigation. In this Mr. 
ConMing failed. Counsel has not, to my knowledge, been employed, 
nor have any lawyers been paid by the governmont in that suit. 

' ' In support of his denial of differences with me which influenced 
his action, Mr. ConMing states the fact that we had but one personal 
interview. That is true ; but it proves the reverse of what Mr. Conk- 
ling asserts, etc. 

' ' Notwithstanding Mr. Conliing's denial in the House, his own 
letters, as well as the foregoing staUments, show that there were differences^ 
and that he was worsted.^' 

No fair-minded man can read my letter, from 
which the above quotation of consecutive parts is 
made, and not admit I enumerate in it the " foregoing 
statements" in support of my assertion, that Mr. 
ConMing and I had had differences in ivhich he, Mr, 
Coiikling, did not succeed. Besides being thus mani- 
fest on the face of the paper, the fact appeared in the 
investigation, and was dwelt upon by my counsel in 
his summing up. Yet the Committee not only fail to 
apply these statements to the charge of differences, 
which was the issue in th^ House between Mr. Blaine 
and Mr. ConMing., but misapply them as the sole 
proof of another charge, and then pronounce that 
charge false. The Committee admitted testimony 
upon, and fyass over that charge in support of which 
they were offered; and while they did not, and 
could not, deny the truth of the statements them- 
selves, or that they sustained that charge, they have 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



77 



diverted them from it and applied them as the 
sole support of another charge, and then say, "the 
specifications signally fail to bear out that charge," 
and report that they have " fully and carefully " ex- 
amined them, and are of opinion that none of the 
charges in General Fry's letter "have any foundation 
in truth." And this passed for logic and fair dealing 
in the House of Kepresentatives, and censure was 
based upon it. 

But let us pass on to an examination in moi'e de- 
tail of this part of the Report based on the Commit- 
tee's premises. 

The charge is, that "Mr. ConMlng prevented 
prosecutions at Utica." How could this be proved ? 

It had first to be shown that there were frauds 
or misdemeanors committed there which were subjects 
for prosecution. 

By reference to the Keport (page 154) it will be 
seen that T was only permitted by the Committee to 
prove such frauds as came to the hnowledge of Mr. 
Conkling and had not been re]?orted to the War Depart- 
ment. Consequently proof of all the frauds which had 
been reported to me officially was ruled out. 

Continuing with the Report, it is stated by the 
Committee that " the prosecution of Captain Richard- 
son was a matter with which Mr. Conhling had noth- 
ing to do." 

Captain Richardson had been dismissed in ac- 
cordance with the following recommendation from 
the Judge Advocate General's Office : 

"WAR DEPARTMENT, 

Washington City, December 2\, 1864. 
General : — 

I have the honor to return to you the papers in the case of Captain 



78 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



Richardson Provost Marshal Twenty-First District, New York, and re- 
spectfully recommend that said Richardson be at once arrested and held 
in custody for trial by Court Martial. The proofs in this case disclose a 
reckless persistency in fraudulent practices that not only demand his 
arrest and trial, but also a complete renovation in the oflBce of said dis- 

I am, General, very respectfully, 

Your obedient servant, 
(Signed) L. C. TURNER, 

Judge Advocate. 
Brigadier General, James B. Fey, 

Provost Marshal General.'''' 

Whereupon Mr. ConMlng wrote to the President 
the letter, found on page 46 of the Report, complain- 
ing of my action in dismissing Richardson. On the 
subject of this letter the Committee say (page 7) : 

" No complaint is made in the letter against General Fry 'by name, 
or ty special reference. " 

The letter states (page 146) that "the Provost 
Marshal {Ricliardsoii) received an order through Ma- 
jor Haddock from General Fry^ informing him that, 
by order of the President, he had been dismissed the 
service," and then goes on to say, "the point I want 
to submit is, his being thus summarily disgraced 
without knowledge of the ground, and without being 
heard," thus complaining directly of " General Fry^^ 
and naming him. How, then, can the Committee say, 
" no complaint is made in the letter against General 
Fry by name, or by special reference " ? 

It will be remembered that this was during the 
time the case was undergoing examination with a view 
to the trial of Michardson, and without Mr. Conhling's 
opinion being solicited, he very frankly assured the 
President that, " in common with others, I (Mr. Conic- 
ling) have kept a pretty close watch upon Captain 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY, 



79 



Michardson, and I have never discovered any corrupt 
practice in himy 

Richardsoii was not tried by Court Martial. The 
case was sent to the District Attorney, and, in a writ- 
ten order from the War Department, after being au- 
thorized to investigate all cases of fraud in the western 
division of New York, Mr. ConMing was invested 
with the following : " You will also appear in behalf 
of the Department m any case that it may be deemed 
more expedient to bring before the civil tribunals." 
(See page 154.) 

Thus much has been said in reply to what the 
Cominittee liave reported in reference to the first of the 
three specifications, or the one referring to Ricliardson, 

Now, what I actually said was — in referring to 
the issues I had had with Mr. ConMing — "the first 
arose in consequence of the removal of Captain Rich- 
ardson (the ^first Provost Marshal of Mr. ConMing^s 
district), upon a report of Judge Advocate Turner, 
that the proofs in his cases disclosed a reckless persist- 
ence in fraudulent practices. Mr. ConMing com-^AsiinQdi 
of my action, both to the President and War Depart- 
ment, but failed to procure any modification of my 
course." 

The only question of fact here is, did Mr. Conh- 
ling complain to the President and to the War Depart- 
ment because of the removal of Richardson, and did 
he fail to procure a modification of the course pursued 
by me in that particular case ? These questions are 
clearly determined in the affirmative by the evidence. 

But referring to the Committee's Report, and to 
my charge that Mr. ConMing was zealous in prevent- 



80 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



ing prosecutions at Utica, if he did not desire to pre- 
vent a ^prosecution of Mlchardsou, he certainly does 
not, in this letter to the President, recommend any 
trial or other investigation ; nor does he say one word 
that can be interpreted to mean that he, in any man- 
ner, desired the trial of the party on whom he had 
" kept a pretty close watch." Yet the commentary on 
that letter by the Committee (page 7) contains the fol- 
lowing : " The main object of the letter seems to have 
been to ash an investigationy 

It is by this system of reasoning, interpretation 
and misconstruction that Mr. CouMing is justified by 
the Committee in all he has said and done, while I I'e- 
ceive its opprobrium and censure under all circum- 
stances. 

The next " specification," as the Committee term 
it, relates to Captain Orandall^ and is in these words : 

"The second issue was as to the restoring of Captain Crai idall, aiier I 
had secured his removal from duty, on the recommendation of Major 
JJuddington, who thoroughly inspected the district and reported that, 
though not legally guilty, he had morally perpetrated most glaring and 
inexcusable frauds on the government, and that he had quieted his con- 
science by casuistry, and regulated his actions by the counsel of unscru- 
pulous legal advisers. 

"Mr. CoTi Hi'?? f/ failed to get Captain CrawdZaZZ restored." 

The only facts contained in this statement, except 
those which purported to have been reported by Major 
Luddington., are as follows : 

1st. — That there was an issue between Mr. Conk- 
ling and me as to Captain OrandaWs restoration to 
office. 

2d. — That Mr. Conhling "failed to get Captain 
Crandcdl restored." 

Now if any part of this " specification " be false, 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 81 

as the Committee say, it is either —first — as to what 
Meijor I/uddingioriYeported, or — second — as to whether 
Mr. Conkling desired CrandaWs restoration and failed. 
Luddingto)^ 8 report is published on pages 155 
and 156. The followino^ extracts show there can be 
no question as to the truth of my statement regarding 
what Luddingtoii reported : 

"I respectfully recommend that every member of the Board of 
Eorolment for Tsveaty-First District of New York be dismissed the 
service, and that the money in possession of Captain Crandall be seized. 
And because of the disgraceful prejudice existing among the demoral- 
ized people of that district against filling their quota with decent men, 
thus preventing one of their own citizens from doing his duty to his 
country, as well as his county, that an officer of the army be detailed as 
Provost Marshal of that district. I do not regard the conduct of the 
Board legally guilty, but morally they have perpetrated a most glaring 
and inexcusable fraud on the government they were sworn to serve. 
They quieted their consciences by casuistry, and regulated their actions 
by the counsel of unscrupulous legal advisers." 

In his letter to the War Department, dated April 
3, 1865 (page 44), Mr. Oonhliiig uses the following 
lano-uaofe : "I advise and recommend that the order 
suspending Captain Peter B. Crandall^ and the other 
members of the Enrolling Board, be revoked, and that 
said Board be reinstated." And see, also, his letter to 
Mr. Dana, of March 13 (page 48). This proves 
that Mr. Qoiikliiig desired the restoration of Captain 
Crandall, and is further evidence in support of my 
charge concerning Mr. Qonkling's zeal in preventing 
prosecutions at Utica. 

Mr. CoiihUiufs failure to secure the restoration of 
Captain Crandall is fully shown by the testimony of 
Major Beadle, who succeeded him as Provost Marshal, 
and continued as such until the office was closed. (See 
page 63.) 



82 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

It therefore appears from the evidence that Mr. 
Coiikling did desire the restoration of Captain Crmi- 
dall ; that he failed to get him restored; and that an 
officer (Major Beadle) selected by me " continued in 
charge of the business until the office was closed," just 
as stated in my letter. This is clear. My statement, 
the truth of which the Committee were directed to 
inquire into, is proven to be true, and here the point 
might rest, but the purpose is to review what the Com- 
mittee say, and to show the error and injustice of 
their report. 

In disposing of this second specification, the Com- 
mittee commence by saying : 

" In relation to Captain Grandall, no concealment was possible, for 
the reason that a full report had been made by Major Luddington hefore 
Mr. Conhling is shown to have had anything to say or do in reference to 
him.^^ 

Let US see if this is correct. 

Luddington s report was made on the 31st of 
March. On the 13th of March Captain Grandall had 
written a defense of his conduct, which he delivered 
to Mr. ConMing^ who had it printed and circulated. 
See ConMing''s testimony, page 150. The letter itself 
is printed on page 256. (Also, see his letter, page 49.) 
On the 29th day of March, Mr. ConJding had an inter- 
view with Major Liiddington at Utica, while the in- 
spection was being made, in which, he testifies, he told 
Luddington " that I thought the fullest investigation 
would prove that Crandall and his associates were 
honest." On the same day he wrote to me protesting 
against the suspension of Crandall (page 49). On 
the 13th of March, more than two weeks previous to 
Luddington's inspection, Mr. Conlding forwarded his 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



83 



semi-confidential, but indignant, remonstrance to Mr. 
Dana^ denouncing me for suspending Crandall — vouch- 
ing for the latter's integrity, and. saying : '* I will be 
personally responsible for him (^CrandalT). The 
charges you refer to are infamously false."(See page 48.) 
With all this testimony before the Committee, and 
published in their Report, they say: " In relation to 
Captain Crandall, no concealment was possible, for 
the reason that a full report had been made by Major 
Luddingtoii before Mr. Conkli:n^g is shown to have 

HAD ANYTHING TO SAY OR DO IN REFERENCE TO HIM." 

The Committee further say : " Surely Mr. Conlc- 
Img could not be in fault for not prosecuting Crandall, 
when, as stated in Ltiddington'' s report, he h^d incun-ed 
no legal guilt." 

The logic of this reasoning is, that it made no 
difference to what extent an investigation would ex- 
pose the guilt of Crandall, he was protected by Lud- 
dingtoii s report that he was not legally guilty though 
he was so morally. 

Mr. ConMing was directed to " investigate all 
cases of frauds " in this and every other district in the 
western division. If, in the course of that investiga- 
tion (if he had made one), he had discovered frauds 
and misdemeanors, for which Crandall should have 
been tried and convicted, the Committee would lead us 
to suppose that,because such facts as came to the knowl- 
edge of Luddington did not, in his opinion, constitute 
'' legal guilt',' such opinion was a perfect defense for 
Crandall, and should defeat any prosecution that 
might be instituted. If the Committee do not mean 
this, why do they say : " Surely Mr. ConMing could not 



84 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY 



be in fault for Dot prosecuting him, when, as stated in 
Major Ludding toil's I'eport, he had incurred no legal 
guilt " ? * 

This remarkable corollary is immediately followed 
by another no more logical, to wit : " Consequently, 
it is not shown by any evidence in relation to Captain 
Crandall that Mr. Oonhluig was zealous in preventing 
prosecutions at Utica, or desired concealment of any 
frauds there." (Page 7.) 

But the Committee were directed by the House 
to make this investigation. What action does the 
Report show them to have taken in regard to allega- 
tions against Captain Crandall, and the action of Mr. 
ConMing in preventing their prosecution ? 

On page 152 it appears that the Committee re- 
quired me to state what I could prove on this point. 
Whereupon a full and distinct statement of proof was 
offered. See Appendix E. 

And thereupon (page 154) the Committee ruled 
as follows : 

" The Committee will hear evidence of any frauds or misdemeanors 
of Provost Marshal Crandall, of which the War Department did not 
have notice, providing Mr. Oonkling is shown to have had knowledge 
thereof. The committee will hold that the War Department did have 
such notice of all alleged frauds and misdemeanors as are set forth in 
the papers from the files of the War Department, which have been 
given in evidence in this case. 

" This evidence is admitted on the ground that, if after Mr. Conh- 

* In referring to the reports made to me concerning Captain Crandall, 
and in reviewing the Report of the Committee, I disclaim making any 
charge of dishonesty or dishonorable conduct against Captain Crandall. 
Probably his trouble arose partly if not wholly from representing inter- 
ests that were more or less conflicting; as Provost Marshal he represented 
the interest of the United States, and as Clerk of the Board of Super- 
visors he represented another interest. 



COXKLING AND BLAINE-FRY COXTROVERSY. 85 

ling had received his instructions from the War Department, such 
offenses are shown to have come to his knowledge, and were never 
communicated to the War Department, nor prosecuted by him, it may 
have some tendency to show omission of duty on the part of Mr. Conh- 
ling, provided the Committee should find Mr. Conhling had any author- 
ity to prosecute Captain Orandnll, the last being a matter upon which 
the Committee does not now decide. The Committee, upon the same 
principle, will not go into evidence touching the alleged frauds or mis- 
demeanors of Crandall, when the said papers from the War Department 
show that that department had notice, during or before the time of 
Mr. (Jonhling's service, of such alleged frauds or misdemeanors. This, 
upon the ground that Mr. Conkling could not have been bound to re- 
port facts already known to the War Department, and that he could 
not prosecute military offenses, for the trial of which the War Depart- 
ment had omitted to order any competent tribunal ; but the exclusion 
of evidence against Mr. ConMing's conduct will exclude evidence in his 
favor as to the same conduct." 

Thus the Committee ruled out the testimony 
offei'ecl, and in the face of this, they say (page 8): 

"iVo evidence was offered 'before the Committee showing or tending to 
shoic that Mr. Crandall hadheen guilty of any fraud or dishonest practice 
which ever came to the knoirledge of Mr. ConHing.'' 

That is, they say, having excluded the proof 
which would establish, or tend to establish, frauds, we 
are of opinion, not only that no frauds have been 
proved, but that no proof of frauds was offered. 

The next statement of the Report (page 7) is in 
reference to the appointment of Captain Crandall as 
Provost Marshal of the Utica district. The Commit- 
tee say, "Mr. (hnA-Iinr/ vehised to have anything to do 
with the selection or designation of any individual for 
that position." 

On page 47, the Committee insert a letter written 
by Mr. ConlJiixj to the President, dated January 11, 
1865, which is as follows : 

" Utica, New Torh, January 11, 1865. 
Sir: — \fter much consultation among our leading citizens in ref. 



86 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

erence to a suitable person to be appointed Provost Marshal of this (the 
twenty-first) district, in case it is or has been determined to appoint a 
successor to Captain Richardson, the prevailing opinion points to Peter 
B. Crandall for the place. He is a thoroughly honest man, and { con- 
cur in recommending his appointment. 

I have the honor to be, your obed't servant. 
The President. (Signed) ROSCOE CONKLING." 

Mr. Crandall was appointed on the 14th of the 
same month, and immediately entered upon the dis- 
charire of his duties. 

In the letter of Captain (kandall^ which Mr. 
Coiiklmg^ in his letter to me, dated March 29, 1865, 
thus refers to : "I have the honor to hand you, here- 
with, letters from Captain (Jraitdall and Commissioner 
Monroe, addressed to me, wliicli I have caused to be 
'printed, etc." the following statement is made (page 
256) : " On the 28d day of January, 1865, 1 received 
a commission, bearing date January 14, appointing me 
Provost Marshal of the Twenty-Fii'st District of the 
State of New York. Tliis appointment I owe to your 
hindness, and to the favorahle opinion entertained of 
me hy yourself, etc^ 

Thus, having before them the letter of Mr. Conic- 
ling, the Member of Congress of the District, to the 
President, recommending Mr. Crandall, dated January 
11, and the evidence of Captain Crandall that he 
was appointed on the 14th of the same month, with 
the further statement that he was indebted to Mr. 
ConMing for such appointment, the Committee are of 
opinion that Mr. ConMing refused to have " anything 
to do with the selection or designation of any individ- 
ual for that position." 

The next statement is as follows : 

"The Committee are of the opinion that the evidence does not 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 87 

show that Mr. Conkling was guilty of any impropriety in recommend- 
ing the restoration of Captain Crandall after Major Luddington's report, 
but on the contrary, it does appear that his action was limited to a 
simple expression of opinion, which opinion was concurred in very gen- 
erally by the citizens of that district, and supported by the report of the 
detective selected by General Fry to investigate the acts of Captain 
Crandall. It has not been shown to the Committee that General Fry or 
any other person believed that Captain Crandall should have been pros- 
ecuted. Mr. Dana testifies to the statement of General Fry that he 
knew nothing which Captain Crandall had done or omitted which he 
should not have done or omitted." 

Major Luddington reported as follows : 

" I respectfully recommend that every member of the Board of 
Enrolment for Twenty-First District of New York, be dismissed the ser- 
vice, and that the money in possession of Captain Crandall be seized. 

***** Morally they have perpetrated a most 
glaring and inexcusable fraud on the government they were sworn 
to serve. They quieted their consciences by casuistry, and regulated 
their actions by the counsel of unscrupulous legal advisers." 

Mr, ConliiiKj, on the day that he first saw this 
report, wrote to the War Department as follows : 

* * * * " I advise ami recommend that the order 

suspending Captain Peter B. Crandall and the other members of the 
Enrolment Board be revoked, and that said Board be reinstated." 

The Committee say this was only the " simple ex- 
pression of an opinion." Let us see. Mr. CouMing had 
been appointed, on the 3d day of April, " to investi- 
gate all cases of fraud in the Provost Marshal's Bu- 
reau, in the western division of New York." On the 
same day he entered upon his duties, and the very 
paper which the Committee say is a " simple expres- 
sion of opinion," is an official report to the War De- 
partment of his investigation of the Utica district. 
Here is what he says : " Having been authorized and 
requested by the Secretary of War to examine certain 
transactions in, the Bureau of the Provost Marshal 



88 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

General relatliv) to the western division of the State 
of New York I have the honor J"^ etc., and then goes on 
with his report, and closes with the recommendation 
quoted. 

Let it be noted here, by way of parenthesis, that 
Mr. Conhling, on this occasion, when all the facts 
and circumstances attending his appointment were 
fresh in his memory, was not of the opinion that his 
appointment was simply to prosecute Major Haddoc\ 
for he did then understand that it embraced the Utica 
office, or, in other words, that the written appointment 
meant Just what it said. 

But the Committee say that this "simple opin- 
ion " of Mr. ConhUng " was concurred in very gener- 
ally hy the citizens of that district^ There is no foun- 
dation for this conclusion, for it does not appear from 
the testimony that the general population, or even a 
majority of the citizens of the district, were called to 
the witness stand, and the Report (page 56) shows 
that the Committee expressly excluded proof as to the 
reputation of CrandaJl and his office. See their Re- 
port (page 66) as follows : 

" The Chairman : All that portion of the offer of evidence, to be es- 
tablished by general reputation, is rejected as inadmissible." 

How, then, could the Committee, sitting as a 
court, have learned the fact that Mi*. ConMing\'^ opin- 
ion ^^tvas concurred in very generally hy the citizens of 
that district " f 

Without reference, however, to the means by 
which the Committee obtained evidence which they 
themselves ruled was improper and inadmissible, there 



COXKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



80 



is one important point necessary in determining the 
value of that opinion, and that is, whether the parties 
who expressed it, or "concurred in the simple opinion " 
of Mr. ConMing, possessed any hnowledge of the facts 
upon ivliich the charges against Crandall were predi- 
cated. On this point there is no light. 

The information to which attention has been 
directed, namely, that Mr. ConMing s opinion of Cap- 
tain Crandall " was concurred in very generally by 
the citizens of the district," is found, not in evidence, 
but in Mr. Conlding's argument, (See page 304.) 

It is there stated Inj Mr. ConMing., in stronger 
terms than those employed by the Committee, and in 
justice to him it is asked why it is that, if the Com- 
mittee adopted <r^s /f/c'^! the statement of Counsel ap- 
pearing in his own behalf, they did not give him the 
whole benefit of the statement as he made it ? He, in 
his argument (page 304), after saying that he " had 
no part in selecting Captain Crandall," that he only 
united with the citizens of the district in expressing 
confidence in his integrity — states that he uttered the 
voice of the '■'lohole community." 

The Committee add, further, that this "opinion" 
was "supported by the report of the detective selected 
by General Fry to investigate the acts of Captain 
Crandcdl.'' 

This statement lacks confirmation in two particu- 
lars : frst, " General Fry " never " selected any detec- 
tive " who made such investigations ; and secondly, no 
such report was ever made to " General Fry.'' On 
the contrary, the inspecting officer. Major Luddington, 
the person selected by me to investigate the acts of 



90 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

Captain Crtmdall, reported directly the reverse. 
(See page 155.) 

The statement regarding my opinion as to whether 
Captain Crandall should have been prosecuted, is pre- 
sented, it is supposed, as introductory of what the 
Committee say Mr. Dani testified to, to wit : " Mr 
Dana testifies to the statement of General Fry, that 
he knew nothing which Captain Crandall had done 
or omitted which he should not have done or omitted" 
(page 8). The only portion of Mr. I)ana''s testimony 
that relates to this subject is as follows (page 113) : 

^'■Question. ' Do you remember Mr, ConUing's calling General Fi'y's 
attention to the statement that Captain Crandall, Provost Marshal of 
the Twenty-First District, had enlisted men who received a smaller lo- 
cal bounty than the highest bounty paid ? ' 

"■^ Ans^cer. 'Yes, sir.' 

'^Question. ' Do you remember Mr. CwiMwg' putting a question in 
two forms to General 7^>y, as to what, if anything, he (Fry) would have 
done differently from what Captain Crandall did, if he had been there 
acting in Crandall s place? ' 

'^ Ayiswer. ' The charge against Captain Crandall ■v^&s ihdki he had 
enlisted men for less bounty than that which was regularly paid, and 
that was regarded as an irregularity on the part of Captain Crandall. 
I remember Mr. Conkling's asking General Fry questions about it. One 
of these questions was, what he would have done had he been in Cap- 
tain CrandaV'ft place, if the men had come to him proposing to enlist, 
taking a less amount of bounty? and General Fry said he did not know. 
And I think Mr. Conkllng asked him what he would have advised Cap- 
tain Crandall to do. He said again lie did not know.'' " 

By referring to page 152 it will be seen that I 
enumerated the charges against Crandall which I 
proposed to prove. The charges were of a serious 
nature, and constituted several separate and distinct 
offenses. 

A subject relating to one of these charges was 
brought to my attention in the presence of Mr. Dana., 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



91 



as he says, or rather a hypothetical case was stated 
to me for my opinion, which I refused to give, and 
stated that I did not know what I should do, or ad- 
vise Crandall to do, in such a case. 

The offenses with which Captain Crandall was 
charged were not referred to, unless it be claimed that 
the conversation had reference to the charo;e of muster- 
ing men without bounty. No other charge was al- 
luded to or discussed. On this point Mr. Dana testi- 
fied only that I said I did not know what I would have 
done, or what I would have advised Captain Crandall 
to do in a certain case. And yet the Committee say 
(page 8) that "Mr. Dana testifies to the statement of 
General Fry, that he hnew nothing ivhich Captain Cran- 
dall had done or omitted which he should not have done 
or omittedy 

That Mr. Dana never intended to authorize this 
perversion of his words and meaning, is apparent from 
what he tells us on his cross-examination. 

On page 115 he says that I had called his atten- 
tion to the condition of affairs in the Twenty-First Dis- 
trict ; that he had conversations with me about the 
Utica district, etc., and sent detectives to Utica ; that I 
told him that the desertions at Utica exceeded those else- 
where, etc. This being true, would it not be remarka- 
ble that I (who had requested the Secretary of War 
to dismiss Crandall from the service, as recommended 
by Major Laddington, to which request the Secretary 
had acceded), should take back all I had charged against 
Crandall, and affirm that he had done or omitted 
nothing but ^vhat he should have done or omitted ? 
On the other hand, does not Mr. Dana's testimony on 



92 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



this point substantiate the truth of that part of the 
letter wherein I say that I declined to discuss this 
matter with Mr. ConMing ? I did, as Mr. Dana testi- 
fies, reply, and repeat it, to Mr. ConhlUig's questions as 
to what I would have done, etc., that I did not hnow ; 
and this in pursuance of the ground 1 had taken not 
to discuss the subject verbally with Mr. ConMiixj. 
The Committee next proceed to state : 

'•General Fry, in his letter of Kcv. 6. published in the Glolie, 
says that Captain Crandall was suspended fi-om duty for refusing to turn 
over the $20,000 bonds to a disbursing officer, an act for which he 
deserved no censui'e, in the oj^inion of the Committee, for the reasons 
herein stated. The letter of General Fri/ to Mr. Blaine states that 
Captain Crandall was discharged on the re.^'ommendat ion of Major 
Luddington, who reported that, though not legally guilty, he had mor- 
ally perpetrated a most glaring and inexcusable fraud on the govern- 
ment he was sworn to serve. The Committee have not found in the 
evidence before them any evidence of such moral fraud on the part of 
Captain Crandall, and certainly no facts have been shown to be within 
the knowledge of Mr. Conhling, in relation to Captain Crandall, which 
would have rendered it improper for Mr. ConMing to have recommended 
his restoration to office." 

My letter of November 6, referred to by the 
Committee, is not in evidence. On this account alone, 
the example of the Committee is departed from, and 
the subject of its contents is not discussed. It will 
be only remarked that, when I state that I suspended 
Captain Crandall, on account of the facts disclosed by 
Luddingtons report, and which report informed me 
that Captain Crandall had refused to turn over the 
money and bonds in question, the difference between 
the two statements made by me of the same fact is so 
finely drawn that it cannot be seen with the naked eye. 

Here is the proposition : 

First. General Fry states that he suspended 
Captain Crandall for refusing to turn over $20,000. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



93 



Second. General Fry states that he suspended 
Captain Crandall upon the report of Major Ludding- 
ton, in which report he is informed that Crandall had 
refused to turn over the $20,000. 

The Committee next give it as their opinion that 
they had not found in the evidence " such moral fraud 
on the part of Captain Crandall^'' and certainly not 
within the knowledge of Mr. ConMing^ as made it im- 
proper for Ml". Conlding to recommend his restoration 
to office. 

It has already been stated that the Committee 
refused to admit proof of frauds on the part of Cap- 
tain Crandall or his office, and hence of coui'se such 
proofs were not in evidence before them. 

Allusion has ah-eady been made to that portion 
of the report (page 7) in which the Committee express 
their opinion that, because Luddington had failed to 
find what he considered legal guilt, therefore his opin- 
ion would be a complete defense of Captain Crandall 
in the event that a trial had been ordered. The lan- 
guage of the Committee (page 7) is, '^ surely Mr. Conh- 
ling could not be in fault foi' not prosecuting him, 
when, as stated in Major Luddington's rej)ort, he had 
incurred no legal guilt." 

It will not escape the observation of the reader, 
that the estimation in which the Committee held the 
opinion of Major Luddington depended entirely on the 
question as to whether or not it agreed with that ex- 
pressed by Mr. Conlding in his argument, for when 
Major Luddington states that he failed to discern 
legal guilt, the Committee say that is an end of the 
matter; but when Major Luddington says that, in his 



94 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



opinion, " Orandall ought to be dismissed the service," 
— " that the money in his possession should be imme- 
diately seized," — that "morally he has perpetrated a 
most glaring and inexcusable fraud," etc., the Com- 
mittee immediately take issue with the report, and 
Justify Mr. ConMing, who had seriously asked the 
War Department to reinstate Captain Orandall^m the 
face of this report ; and the Committee give it as their 
oj^inion that they found nothing in the evidence that 
rendered "Mr. ConMin<fs recommendation of Cran- 
dalVs restoration to office impro2:)er." 
The Committee next remark : 

'■'•An attem'pt was made to show, by the testimony of Patriel J. Kin- 
ney, that when Aaron Richardson, a bounty broker who ought to have 
been prosecuted at Utica, was arrested at Utica he was set at liberty by 
the officers having him in custody, after an interview which he had, at 
his own request, with Mr. ConUing. ' ' 

The inference which leo;itimatelv follows this 
statement is, that the " attemi^t " to prove the propo- 
sition failed ; for, if it had succeeded, it is supposed 
the Committee would have regarded it as an accom- 
plished fact, and stated it accordingly. The question 
then is, " Did Mr. ConMing's intervention secure Mr. 
Michardson'' s release ? " 

Patrick J. Kinney swears that it did, Judge 
Hunt confii'ms it, and Mr. Conhling admits it. Plere 
is what Kinney states in his testimony (page 84) : 

'■'■Quest ion. 'State your residence and emploj'^ment in March, 
1865.' 

'■^Answei-. ' I was living in Utica, and was clerk at Baggs' Hotel.' 

'■'•Question. 'State whether Aaron liicliard^on was arrested at that 
hotel in March, 1865.' 

' '■Answer. ' Yes, sir ; a couple of men came there and arrested him. ' 

' ' Question . ' What time was that arrest made ? ' 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



95 



' '•Ansioer. ' They came there about five o'clock in the morning. I 
think the arrest was made at about half -past five.' 

^'■Question. 'Do you know whether any messenger was sent for 
ConUing or not, upon his arrest ; and if so, who went ? ' 

''•Answer. 'I went for Mr. ConMing.'' 

'■^Question. ' State where you found Mr. ConHing, and what you 
said to him.' 

'^A?iswer. 'Mr, Conkling was in his room. I told him that Mr. 
Eicharchon wanted to see him, and that he was arrested. I came over 
to the hotel, and Mr. ConUing came soon after. By this time they had 
come down from Mr. Rirluirdson s room. When Mr. ConUing came 
over there, they were behind the desk. Mr. ConUing spoke to one of 
the men who had arrested liirhardson, and called the other and spoke 
with him, and Mr. liichardson went a short time and spoke with them, 
and, after a few moments. Mr. ConUing went away.' 

' ' Question. ' When you speak of ' ' these men ' ' do you mean the 
men that arrested Mr. liirhardson ? ' 

^^Ansirer. ' Yes, sir ' 

^'Question. ' Do you know whether or not Mr. Richardson was dis- 
charged from arrest? ' (Objected to, and objection overruled.) 

''Answer. 'They did not do anything with him that I know of. 
The men went away and left Richardson there. ' ' 

Mr. Conhling, in bis examination of Judge Hunt, 
a AV'itness called by himself (page 100) inquires as 
follows : 

'■'Question. ' Da you recollect the circumstances of his {Richardsoii) 
being arrested by detectives ? ' 

' 'Ans'wer. ' Yes, sir. ' 

"Question. ' Do you recollect Mr. ConUing's iniormiug you, and 
on that same day, of what had occurred ? ' 

' 'Avswer. ' Mr. Conkling informed me, I think on the same day, 
that Richardson had been arrested early in the morning; that there was 
some confusion about it; that Richardson had sent for him, and that he 
had taken the detectives one side, and had informed them that Richard- 
son was making important disclosures to him, and was aiding and 
benefiting the government in that way, and that Mr. ConUing was 
making use of him; and that, in substance, the facts stated by him to 
the detectives induced them to discharge Richardson,^ " etc. 

As the question of fact now stands on this point 
of the Committee's Report, we have the testimony of 



90 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

Patrick J. Kinney aud Judge Hunt, and Mr. Coiik- 
ling's admission, on the one side, and the statement of 
the Committee, without any testimony to suppoit it, 
on the other. The bearing of the facts in this case 
upon my charge of zeal on Mr. Onih^iiufs part in pi'e- 
venting prosecutions at Utica, need not be dwelt upon. 
The Committee next proceed as follows : 

" In relation to this matter, it is only necessary to say that Mr. 
Jiirhardson had made important dlsc'csures t" the government ; was a wit- 
ness in the prosecution of Haddoch ; that the act.s of Mr. ConJcIing were 
fully known to and approved by the Secretary of War." 

Now, is it true '^ that Jtichardson had made im- 
portant disclosures to the (jovernmenV f 

The arrest and release by Mr. ConMing's intei"- 
vention occurred some time during the month of March 
(page 84). It must have occurred prior to the 30th 
of that month, because Mr. ConMing, who was pres- 
ent on the occasion, proves by Judge Hunt (page 100) 
that, on that day, he and the witness were at Syracuse, 
"on professional engagements;" and, on that day, 
while at Syracuse, Mr. ConMing received Mr. Dana^s 
despatch, dated March 80 (see page 111), and that, 
at midnight, March 30, Mr. ConMing left Syracuse for 
Washington, pursuant to the despatch. (Seepage 100.) 

If, then, it be true that Ilicliardson was released 
hecaiise he had made important disclosures to the gov- 
ernment, they must have been made prior to the day 
on wdiich Mr. ConMing left Utica for Syracuse, where 
we find him, by the testimony, on the 30th day of 
March. 

It then becomes important to know when these 
disclosures were made to " the o;overnment." 

Fortunately, the Secretary of War has fixed, with 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 97 

certaiuty, the date, and, unfortunately for tbe Com- 
mittee, he fixes it at a period subsequent to the ari'est 
and release of Ricliardson. Here is what he says : 

" Some time in the latter part of March, 1865, my attention was 
called to Ihe subject of alleged abuses and fraud practised on a large 
scale in the Provost Marshal's District, of which Major Hnddorh was the 
chief. About the 30th of March, it was commu.nicated to me, I think 
by Mr. Ihina, that there was a person cognizant of faevs in relation to 
those alleged frauds that could afford information useful to the govern- 
ment, if that person was himself made secure against prosecution or 
punishment for his iiarticipatiou in those offenses. I directed Mr. 
D'iii(( to telegraph to Mr. ('oiiliing to come here. I suppose the date of 
the telegram was the 30th of March — tlie same day I riceived this infor- 
mation.''' 

The fact, then, is, as disclosed b}^ the testimony, 
that some time in March, previous to March 30, 
Richardson was arrested at half past five o'clock in 
the morning ; that he sent Kinney for Mr. ConMing, 
who immediately came and caused his release; and 
that the Secretary of War had no information, until 
the 30th of March, that such a man as " Richardson " 
existed, or that anyJ>od>/ had proposed to make dis- 
closures on the subject. Therefore, it is not true, as 
reported by the Committee, that Richardson. \vas re- 
leased because he ^^ had made disclosures to the gov- 
<3rnment," for the simple reason that the governmeni 
had no information on the subject until after the re- 
lease. Mr. ConMing was not appointed to investigate 
frauds, or tiy HaddocJc, until the 3d of April follow- 
ing that transaction, and does not even claim to have 
had authority })rior to that time to receive disclosures 
or represent the War Department in any respect what- 
ever. 

The next statement is, that Richardson Avas a 
witness in the prosecution of HaddocJc. 



98 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

This, as an independent proposition, not connected 
with the subject under discussion, is certainly true ; 
but this admitted truth is so used by the Committee 
as to produce error, for it will not be denied that the 
statement of the Committee that ^^ Ii/chardso7i was a 
witness in the prosecution of Haddock^'' was intended, 
in some way, to exculpate Mr. Conhling for securing 
the release of Richardson, that beinoj the point then 
under the consideration of the Committee. And as 
the proof shows that Haddock's trial commenced in 
the latter part of May, it is obv^ious that RicliardsoiiS 
testimony had no connection with events that occurred 
in the March preceding. The Committee then add : 

" The acts of Mr. Conlllng in relation to the witness were fully 
known to, and approved by, the Secretary of War " 

If this statement means the acts of Mr. Conk- 
ling, by which Ilichardsoii was released from ar- 
rest, then it is wholly without foundation, and un- 
less it is intended to mean tliat, it is without meaning. 

That it is calculated to convey that which shall be 
presently demonstrated to be erroneous is evident 
from the subject-matter to which it relates, and its 
connection with the charge which it attempts to ex- 
plain away. 

The charge is, that Mr. Conklhuj secured the re- 
lease of Aaron Richardson. In justification of Mr. 
Conkling's conduct, the Committee state two proposi- 
tions as facts : 

1st, That Richardson had mile important dis- 
closures to the government ; and 2nd, that the acts 
of Mr. Conkling in relation to Richardson were known 
to, and approved by, the Secretary of War. There- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 99 

fore, no blame is to be attached to Mr. Conhlmg for 
releasing Richardson. 

The present question, then, is simply this : " Were 
the acts of Mr. Conhling in i-eleasing liichardsoii from 
arrest, known to, and appi'oved by, the Secretary of 
War?" 

It has been stated that Richardson's arrest and 
release occurred in March. On the second day of 
April following^ Mr. ConMing had an interview with 
Mr. Stanton (see testimony of Mr. Stanton, page 122), 
in which interview Mr. ConMing brought to the at- 
tention of the Secretary the fact that Richardson was 
willing to give information to the government, if the 
government would guarantee that such information 
would not be used against himself; whereupon the 
Secretary informed Mr. ConMing that he " would not 
give any guarantee of that character." 

Here is the testimony (page 127) : 

^'■QHextion ' Will you state whether Mr. Conklmg brought to your 
knowledge, when here on the occasion spoken of, the fact that there 
was a person who held no office, but had been engaged in recruiting, 
and who was willing to furnish evidence to the government, if it 
would not be used against himself V ' 

"■Answer. 'I remember that Mr. Cow W///^^; mentioned there was a 
person who could give evidence material to the government, provided 
he was himself secured atjainst prosecution. I refused to give any 
guarantee of that character, but told Mr. ConkHng that if this person 
was cognizant of any of the matters of which he had the investigation, 
it was competent for him to u?-e that person as a witness ; and if he was 
satisfied that he testified fairly and truly, the practice of the Depart- 
ment never was to prosecute such persons.' 

From this, it appears that the Secretary of War 
was not informed that Richardson had made impor- 
tant disclosures, but that, on certain conditions, he 
would be willing to give evidence material to the gov. 



100 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

ernment; and tliis is all the information he had on the 
subject. The statement, therefore, that " the acts of 
Mr. ConMlng relating to the release of Richardson 
were fully known to, and approved by, the Secretary 
of Wai'," is not correct. 

The next point discussed by the Committee relates 
to the employment of counsel to defend a suit brought 
by Aaron Richardson against Captain Crandall, to 
recover $20,000 in bonds belonging to the United 
States, which Orandall had been ordered in vain to 
turn over to the government. 

To understand the histor}^ of this transaction, we 
will go back to the 11th day of March, 1865, and hear 
what Captain Crandall had to say on the subject of 
these bonds. In his letter to the Provost Marshal 
General, of that date, which his attorney. Judge Hunt, 
says was written by his advice and suggestion (see 
page 92), he says : 

' ' I have in my hands, left irith me hy recruits, in the manner stated, 
money to the amount of $11,395, and county honds to the amount of 
$20,000. 

The testimony shows that Captain Crandall was 
ordered by his superior officer. Major Haddoch, to 
turn these bonds over to Special Officer Hoard, and 
that he disobeyed the order (page 94). 

That he was next ordered to turn them over to 
Captain MeredWi, a United Slates disbursing officer, 
and that he disobeyed (page 9-4). 

That he was next ordered to tui'n them over to 
Major Beadle, who relieved him as Provost Marshal, 
and who was entitled to receive from him money and 
property which he held as Provost Marshal, and that 
he disobeyed that order (pages 84 and 202). 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTEOVERSY. 



101 



That he was next ordered by the Provost Mar- 
shal General to turn over the same, and again failed 
(pages 95, 96 and 202). 

After having disobeyed four different orders, to 
turn the bonds over to the United States, it seems a 
suit for their recovery was instituted by Aaron Rich- 
ardson, which suit was successfully defended by Cran- 
dall, on the ground that the honds belonged to the 
United States, although he had refused to surrender 
them to the United States, and still retained possession 
of them after he ceased to be an officer of the govern- 
ment. 

The Committee say (page 8) : 

"They (the bonds) either belonged to Richardson, who deposited 
them, or to the government, for whose security they were deposited." 

OrandalVs Attorney, Judge Hunt, testifies (page 98) 
that Captain " Crandall never claimed any personal 
interest in those bonds ; " that " there was no motive 
on the part of Crandall but to hold them that the gov- 
ernment might have the benefit of them, and to compel 
the proper conduct of Richardson during the Haddoch 
trial." Again : 

' ' Question. ' What became of the bonds eventually ? ' 
' ^Ansioer. ' The suit was tried before Judge Bacon and was decided 
in favor of Captain Crandall, and against the claim of Bichardson. The 
suit is now, as I understand, appealed to the General Term.' " 
(Page 98.) 

Let it not be forgotten that the Committee (page 
8) have decided, as a question of law, that these bonds 
" either belonged to Richardson or to the govern- 
ment." Judge Hunt, however, informs us (page 99) 
that 

♦' within a few days before the suit was tried, a resolution was passed 
by the Board of Supervisors of the county of Oneida, in effect request- 



102 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



ing Mr. Crandall to ti'ansfer to the county for their benefit, to indem- 
nify them as far as possible on the subject of recruiting moneys, these 
bonds of Richardson and any claim he might have in or to the bonds, 
agi-eeing with him to indemnify him against all loss or damage in con- 
sequence of so doing, upon any claim that would be made against him, 
and offering to pay his costs or expenses. A bond was given him which 
I prepared, and an assignment made transfei-ring all his interest in the 
claims for the benefit of the county of Oneida — Mr. Crandall made no 
personal claim of ownership of the bonds at any time." 

It will be remembered that these bonds were 
issued by the Supervisors of Oneida county ; that, at 
the time, Captain Orandall was Cle7'h of the Board of 
Supervisors, as well as Provost Marshal (see page 
65), and that he was one of the principal witnesses in 
the prosecution of Major Haddock^ of which case Mr. 
Conhling was Judge Advocate. 

That, on the 11th of April, he (^Crandall) repre- 
sented to me (page 92) that he 

' ' had in his hands, left with him by recruits, in the manner stated, 
money to the amount of .$11,395, and county bonds to the amount of 
$30,000." 

That, on four different occasions, he was ordered 
to turn these funds over to the government, all of 
which orders he failed to obey, on account, as he says, 
of Richardson s claim. 

Having obtained possession of these bonds in his 
official capacity as Provost Marshal, he retained pos- 
session of them in defiance of repeated orders to turn 
them over, and having defeated the government in its 
efforts to obtain them, he defeated the claim of Mich- 
ardson. No longer in the service, he finds himself a 
citizen with $20,000 in bonds, which, as he states in his 
letter, he has " in his hands, left with him by recruits," 
and which the Committee say (page 8), '' belong un- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSF. 103 

questionably either to Richardson or the government^'' 
both of which parties he has managed to defeat ; and 
having thus defeated all 2^ai*ties who, the Committee 
say, had any right to these bonds, Captain Crandall 
proceeded to turn them over to the Board of Super- 
visors, of which he had been, and it is believed was 
still, the clerk. Yet we are told by the Committee 
(page 9) that they have " not been able to discover 
anything improper in the conduct of Captain Crandall 
in relation to these bonds." For further discussion of 
this subject see Appendix F. 

The Committee next proceed to discuss the para- 
graph of my letter charging Mr. Colliding with neglect 
of duty in not filing charges against me, if he had dis- 
covered guilt or official misconduct on my part ; and 
this statement of mine is declared in the Committee's 
finding to be without foundation in truth. The Com- 
mittee say : " Mr. Conhling had nothing to do with 
filing charges against General Fry^'' and they support 
this opinion by adding : 

' ' Mr. Stanton said, ' Tn the prosecution of Major Iladdoch to final 
judgment, Mr. ConHing performed all the duty I expected him to per- 
form,' " 

The Committee's quotation was part of Mr. Stan- 
tons testimony in chief, and is general in its terms and 
application. The record of his cross-examination (page 
128) brings his testimony directly to the point in issue, 
and shows the following question to, and answer from 
him : 

" Question. 'If, in the course of that investigation, among per- 
sons supposed to have been involved in these frauds, it had come to 
the notice of Mr. Conkling that the Provost Marshal General himself 
was implicated in these frauds, would it then have been proper for 



104 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



him to have notified the head of the War Department of the facts that 
would implicate the chief of that Bureau ? ' 

' ^Answer. ' If facts, affecting the honesty and integrity of the 
Provost Marshal General, or his proper administration of the office, had 
come to the knowledge of Mr. ConHing, I think it loould hwe Iteen his 
duty to report them to the Secretary of War for his action.' " 

Here the witness, in answer to a question bearing 
directly on the point in issue, in unmistakable lan- 
guage, states, as I stated in my letter, that if Mr. Coiik- 
ling learned facts affecting my honesty or integrity, it 
was his duty to have reported them to the War De- 
partment for action ; and this fact appears on the 
record, and was pointedly set out by my counsel in 
his argument. Yet the Committee ignore it, and make 
an extract from the testimony in chief of this witness, 
and then quote him as authority for their statement 
that Mr. ConMing had nothing to do with filing charges 
against General Fry. 

In relation to the powers and duties imposed upon 
Mr. ConMing by the appointment of April 3, "to in- 
vestigate all cases of fraud in the Provost Marshal's 
Department of the Western Division of New York, 
and all misdemeanors connected with recruiting," Mr. 
Stanton said in his testimony, " the authority upon its 
face speaks for itself." Further comment seems un- 
necessary, but in exhibiting the unsoundness of the 
Committee's judgment upon this point, it is proper to 
make admission that Mr. ConMing'' s letter of appoint- 
ment was not intended by the Secretary of War to 
empower Mi\ ConMing to investigate my conduct, nor 
was it so understood by Mr. ConMing. The point I 
made is, that if, while per forming the plain duty which 
he assumed under the appointment, Mr. ConMing came 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



105 



into possession of facts which justified his attack upon 
me in the House, then he was bound by the situation 
in which he found himself to file charges against me 
in the War Department long before his speech was 
made. That the condition of public affairs called for 
that action is shown by the Committee, where they 
say (page 3) : 

' ' On the 2d of April Mr. ConlTing came to Washington and had an 
interview with the Secretary of War, who then ui-ged him to take 
charge of the investigation referred to, stating, at tlie same time, that 
he considered a diligent ami vigorous investigation as ahsolutehj neces- 
sary to the safety of the country; that we were at that time engaged in 
the midst of a draft; that General Grant had commenced his move- 
ments; and that everything depended on keeping the army up ; and the 
means of keeping the arnay up was the diligent and vigorous recruiting 
which was then going on." 

Notwithstanding all this, it would have been " evi- 
dently improper," in the oinnioii of the Conunittee, for 
Mr. ConMing to have reported or " filed any charges" 
against me, if he had discovered that I was at the bot- 
tom of the frauds which he was appointed to investi- 
gate, and the suppression of which the Secretary of 
War regarded as "absolutely necessary to the safety 
of the country." 

' ' All Mr. Conhling could do in respect to other persons than Major 
IladdocTc woidd te to prefer charges or proofs against others besides Major 
Haddocl, and then it would require the order of the Department detail- 
ing this or some other court of which he might or might not be a mem- 
ber as Judge Advocate, for the purpose of bringing those cases to trial. ' ' 
(Pages.) 

The Committee here admit that it was Mr. Conk- 
ling^ s duty to J) refer charges or proofs against persons 
other than Major Haddock. Yet they (page 10) say 
that " he (^ConMing') had nothing whatever to do with 
filing charges against General Fry.'''' 



106 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

But aside from all of this, if Mr. ConMing had 
acted in no official capacity whatever, was he not, as 
stated in my letter, guilty of grave public wrong, as a 
good citizen, in not filing charges against a high gov- 
ernment officer, if he came into possession of facts im- 
pugning or impeaching the integrity of that officer, in 
a matter in which the welfare of the nation was 
thought to be involved ? 

For a report of a Committee, which ought to have 
been impartial, there is at least sufficient indignation 
expressed in their opinion of the statement in my letter 
touching a report that Mr. ConMing had received addi- 
tional fees from the people of his district for his ser- 
vices in the Haddock case. 

It is not, however, proposed to discuss the temper 
of this part of the Report, but to deal with its findings 
as contrasted with its own record of the case. 

Here the Committee again group together differ- 
ent paragraphs of my letter, which have no possible 
relation to each other, and proceed to comment upon 
them, as if they had been connected and intended to 
convey the meaning which the Committee profess was 
designed by the writer. The Committee then proceed 
to say that they can find " not even the existence of 
the report as to the $5,000 ; " that the accusation of 
the existence of the report " is not only utterly false 
in fact, but false in each particular," etc. At this 
point it is asked. Upon wdiat proof do the Committee 
base this statement ? The record of the testimony 
does not justify it, as the only witnesses who testified 
on this point were Mr. ConMing himself and his wit- 
ness, Mr. Roberts, and their testimony was only that 



coNkling and blaine-fry controversy. 107 

THEY had never heai'd the rumor. It will not do to 
say that I did not bring affirmativ^e proof to show its 
existence. If it was a subject of sufficient importance 
to arouse the indignation of the Committee, and con- 
stitute a prominent feature of the Report, it must be 
presumed that it was of sufficient interest to them to 
make some investisration as to the truth of its exist- 
ence, for it must not be forgotten that the Committee 
were directed to investigate ; and they were not ex- 
pected to fold their arms and wait for testimony to 
oifer itself ; especially as at the outset of the investi- 
gation the Committee failed to inform me, in answer 
to my inquiry, on what points they desired evidence 
to be presented. 

The Committee next allege that the letter con- 
taining the charge was " written out and sent to 
Congress to be read in the presence of the nation," 
etc. 

This is simply a gratuity, which has already been 
noticed. Whoever had read the letter, or heard it 
read, knew well that it was not sent " to Congress" 
but to a member, and that to him primarily, and to 
the House which permitted its reading, are we in- 
debted for the fact of its beino; read in the House. 

The Committee next proceed to eulogize the con- 
duct of Mr. Colliding for the part he took in the trial 
of Major Haddock. 

Listen : 

" He accepted the service with reluctance, and upon the mo.jt 
pressing and repeated solicitations of the Secretary of War. He took it 
at the sacrifice of other professional business of equal value, or of, per- 
haps, greater value to him than he realized for this. He took it at a 



108 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

time when it was almost vital to the interest of the military service in 
New York that it should be rendered. ' ' 

Mr. Colliding was appointed Judge Advocate in 
the Haddock case by the Secretary of War, by Special 
Orders No. 227, dated Adjutant General's Office, May 
18, 1865, a copy of which is in evidence. Richmond 
was evacuated on the 2d day of April, 1865. Mr. Dana 
and Mr. ConMing went to the capital of the so-called 
Confederacy, then in our possession, and after return- 
ing Mr. Conhling received the authority in question. 
Lee surrendered April 9, 1865, and the war was over. 
Orders went out on the 13th day of April, 1865, to 
stop drafting and recruiting. During the summer fol- 
lowing, Mr. ConMing convicted Major Haddock, and 
yet we are gravely told by the Committee that the 
services were undertaken at a time almost vital to the 
interests of the military service in New York. 

The Committee next proceed to discuss the ques- 
tion of the right of Mr. Oonkling to receive compensa- 
tion as a member of Congress and Judge Advocate for 
the same period. 

It is certain that Mr. ConMing was a member of 
Congress and was paid as such from March 4, 1865, to 
March 4, 1867, and that between those dates he acted as 
Judge Advocate of the Haddock court-martial, and for 
that received from the government the sum of $3,000. 
I did not assert that it was unlawful for Mr. ConMing 
to receive both payments, but the Committee, after a 
long argument, decide that the double payment was 
lawful. Upon that decision I shall only remark that, 
as Judge Advocate, Mr. ConMing eiihev performed the 
duties of an office, or he, being at the time a member 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 109 

of Congress, was employed and paid by the govern- 
ment as a lawyer. It is, I believe, conceded that the 
incumbent of one office is not entitled to pay for i)er- 
forming the duties of another office ; and, though lightly 
pushed aside by the Committee, the Act of 1808, as 
interpreted by Attorney-General Wirt, forbids the gov- 
ernment from employing a member of Congress as a 
lawyer. That the reader may judge for himself the 
letter and spirit of the Act of 1808, and the Attorney- 
General's official construction of it, I give them in full. 

Art of April 2Ut 1808, Section 4=. 
'•If any officer of the United States, on behalf of the United States, 
shall, directly or indirectly, make or enter into any contract, bargain 
or agreement, in writing or otherwise, other than such as herein ex- 
cepted, with any member of Congress, such officer, so offending on 
conviction thereof, shall be deemed and taken to be guilty of a high 
misdemeanor, and be fined in a sum of three thousand dollars." 

Contracts with Members of Congress. 

Although the employment of members of Con- 
gress as assistant counsel to the District Attorneys of 
the United States was not within the view of Congress 
at the passage of the Act of 21st of Api'il, 1808, it for- 
bids all contracts between officers of the government 
and members of Congress. 

The policy of the law is to prevent the exercise 
of executive inHuence over the members of Congress 
by means of contracts ; and whether the contract be 
for the services of a lawyer, a physician, a mail-carrier, 
or a purveyor, it is e(|ually witJiin the mischief to he 
23revented. 

"ATTOENEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, 
'•July 18, 1836. 
' ' Sir : The question which you submit for my opinion is, whether 
your employment of members of Congress, as assistant counsel to the 



110 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

District Attorneys of the United States, be within the prohibitions of 
the Act of ^Ist April, 1808, ' concerning public coiitracts ' ? 

"I am entirely satisfied that this sort of engagements was not 
within the view of Congress when the act was passed ; but that the 
species of contracts which led to its passage were of a different char- 
acter, as stated in the report of a select committee of the 29th 
March, 1833, upon the subject of the employment of a Senator of the 
United States in the examination of certain land offices in Ohio, &c. 
The practice, too, in several instances stated in that report,, seems to 
have limited the construction of the act to the specific species of con- 
ti'acts which were known to have led to its enactment. But yet, the 
language of the law is so broad and so explicit, not only in its positive 
enactments, but in its exceptions ; and its policy, too, is so broad and 
general, that I cannot discover any satisfactory distinction by which the 
contracts in question can be withdrawn from its operation. 

" Tlie 1st section forbids all contracts between officers of the gov- 
ernment and members of Congress. It is true that the language of this 
section seems, for the most part, to be applicable only to the kind of 
contracts which produced the law; and had the question rested on this 
section only, there would have been good ground for confining the 
operation of the act to thos-e kinds of contracts to which it owes its 
origin. But tlie 2d reflects a larger construction on tiie 1st, by 
excepting from its action a species of contract as far removed from the 
natural sense of the 1st section as the kind of engagements now in 
question — to wit, the purchase of bills of exchange from members of 
Congress. The exception proves that Congress intended, by the 1st 
section, to use language broad enough to cover the excepted cases; and 
that hence it was necessary to introduce the positive exception. Now 
if. as is thus implied by the Legislature itself, the 1st section is broad 
enough to comprehend the sale of bills of exchange, I see not ichy it is 
not Irroad enough to comprehend the sale ofprofessional services, or any other 
species of worJc and lahor in any other art, mystery, or science, as well as that 
of law. And again : if the prohibitions do not extend to engagements 
for professional services with gentlemen of the law, do they extend to 
engagements with gentlemen of the medical faculty ? If not, a mem- 
ber of Congress might be stationed as a surgeon at a military post, on 
an annual stipend, without any violation of the law. 

"But let us pursue the inquiry one step further. The 2d section 
of the act having expressly excepted from the operation of the law two 
cases only — to wit. contracts with corporations, and the purchase of 
bills of exchange — the 4th section uses the following pointed and com- 
prehensive terms : ' that if any officer of the United States, in behalf 
of the United States, shall, directly or indirectly, make, or enter into 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTHOVERSY. Ill 

any contract, bargain, or agreement, in writing or otherwise, othei- than 
such as are herein excepted, with any member of Congress, such officer 
so offending,' &c., &c. Now, 1 think it cannot be denied that an en- 
gagement with a gentleman of the bar, tchereby, for a valuable considera- 
tion, he is to render his professional services in a given case, is a contract, 
a bargain, an agreement, in the legal sense of these terms (and in none other 
are they to be regarded) ; and it is a bargain, contract, or agreement, 
other than the two which had been previously excepted by the act. It 
is, therefore, a contract forbidden expressly by the fourth section of the act. 

' ' Should it be objected that this is sticking in the letter of the law, 
to the disregard of its policy, I cannot accede to the objection. 

"The policy of the law is to prevent the exercise of executive 
influence over the members of Congress by the means of contracts ; and 
whether the contract be for the service of a lawyer, a physician, or a 
mail carrier, an army purveyor, or a turnpike-road maker, it seems to 
me to be equally within the policy and mischief of the law. The only 
difference is in the permanency of the engagement; but a succession of 
single engagements is quite as mischievous as a contract in solido ; and 
if the distinction is to be allowed, the law might easily be evaded. 

' ' Finally, even if the construction of the law were dvibious, yet, 
as executive officers, it would become us to remember that it is a reme- 
dial law, enacted as a bar to executive influence ; that, in the construc- 
tion of all such laws, the rule is to give them a large construction for 
the advancement of the remedy and the suppression of the mischief; 
and that it is much safer to err on the side of forbearance, than on that 
of possible encroachment. 

(Signed) " WM. WIRT. 

" To the Postmaster General.'''' 

Hobokeii, t 

Before entering upon a, discussion of that part of 
the Keport of the Committee relative to the Hoboken 
question, it will not be improper to recall a few col- 
lateral facts w^hich the history of the case discloses. 

The Committee were directed to investigate two 
distinct subjects : 

First. Mr. Conhling's charges against me; and, 

Second. '^ To examine into the statements made 



f A concise account of the Hoboken affair has been given, Chap. III. 



112 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



by General Fry in his communication to Hon. Mr. 
Blaine r 

It appears from the journal of the Committee 
(page 35) that at their first meeting^they ordered that 
my charges against Mr. (S<9/iHw^^ should be first ex- 
amined ; and it also appears from their Report (page 
31) that the Committee did not enter upon the investi- 
gation of Mr. Ooiiklin<fs charges against me. 

The issue, then, which the Committee tried was, 
whether Mr. ConMlng was guilty of the charges con- 
tained in my letter. 

If the accusations were unfounded, and Mr. Goiih- 
ling innocent, the motive or inducement which moved 
me to make the charges could in no way affect Mr. 
(Jonkling j and if he was completely exculpated by the 
proof — and as my conduct was not then on trial, but 
was expressly reserved — it is difficult to understand 
upon what principle the evidence relating to the 
Hoboken case, in which I was the accused or suspected 
party, was admitted. The Committee refrain from 
giving an opinion upon the Hoboken matter, because it 
did not affect the case which they were trying. Why, 
then, was it admitted ? And why was it set forth as 
a prominent feature of the Committee's Keport ? 

The Committee also say they refi'ain from ex- 
pressing an opinion as to whether Theodore Allen 
is entitled to belief, and yet incorporate his evidence 
into their Report. It was within the knowledge of 
the Committee that, while their Report would be gen- 
erally read by the public, the evidence in the case 
would not be read by one in ten thousand. Yet the 
statement of Allen infests the pages of their Report, 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



113 



while not one syllable is uttered by the Committee to 
inform the House and country who and what Theodore 
Allen is. 

Does their Report disclose the fact that they ex- 
cluded an authenticated copy of the record of his trial 
and conviction, on confession in open coui't, for steal- 
ing from the person — " picking a pocket " ? No. 
(Page 256.) Do they inform as that Allen served his 
term of four months in the city prison ? No. That 
he kept a gambling house as his vocation ? (Page 168.) 
No. That some of the most respected and respectable 
men of New York swear that he was not to be believed 
under oath ? No. That he served a term of impris- 
onment in Fort Lafayette by order of General Dixf 
No. And yet the Committee knew all this. But they 
incorporate his testimony into their Report, and read 
it to the House. 

But a more startling fact remains to be stated. 
Not one single item of recorded evidence offered by nie to 
rebut this testiinony of Allen is alloiuedto appear in the 
record, except two letters set out in my counsel's 
argument, and these the Committee say were never 
offered, and doubt their genuineness. (Page 38.) 
They say : 

" The following copies of ichtt imriiort to be two letters — one by 
Col. L. C. Baker and the other by Gen. Fry —appear in a printed argu- 
ment by Hon. A. O. Riddle, which has been laid upon the tables of the 
members of this House. ' ' (Page 31.) 

Now, as this is stated in the Report, it is certain 
that the attention of the Committee was called to 
these two letters, or " what purport to be two letters," 
before the Committee made its Report to the House. 



114 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

What, then, was the plain duty of the Committee ? 
Was it to hold fast to Allen and his story, and deny 
or doubt the genuineness of these letters, or to exam- 
ine the records of the War Department and see if they 
were genuine — to call upon and " examine " the writ- 
ers, as directed by the House, for further proof, con- 
ceding that sufficient had not been offered ? AVere 
not the Committee appointed to investigate and learn 
the truth ? And was it not fair that the testimony in 
my favor should be published, unclouded, as well as 
the story of Allen, which even the Committee do not 
say they believe ? 

Yet without any apparent effort to ascertain 
whether the letters were or were not genuine, or what 
additional records I had introduced, or could produce, 
the Committee concluded their Keport, withholding 
their opinion ; but, by endorsing Allen, and suppress- 
ing all the official correspondence, except such as 
seemed to corroborate his testimony, they leave the 
House and the country to form such an opinion as the 
extracts from a few of the official records, ingeniously 
framed together, and supported by Allen's testimony, 
with the quasi endorsement of the Committee, would 
naturally seem to warrant. 

Having published, as a part of their Repoi-t, the 
evidence of such a man as Allen, attacking the repu- 
tation of the head of a Government Bureau, they pref- 
ace that portion of their Report by calling attention 
to the fact that Mr. Conhling had insinuated that there 
was complicity between Major Haddoch and me. The 
Committee " do not express an opinion " on the sub- 
ject of that complicity, but what they do say is this : 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



115 



' ' Detailed reports of specific acts of official dishonesty committed 
by Haddock had been made to General Fry in writing on several occa- 
sions — one by Edxcard Mehy*, dated February 3, 1865, and another by 
Peter A. La France, dated February 28, 1865. Two of the alleged 
accomplices of Haddock in the fraudulent practices reported, named 
Webel and Bolton, were arrested and afterwards sent to the penitentiary. 
Haddock himself, however, was not then arrested nor I'elieved from 
duty. But, on the 15th day of March, 1865, Colonel L. C. Baker tele- 
graphed to Provost Marshal General Fry to the effect that he had dis- 
covered most astounding enlistment frauds at Elmira. with which 
Major Haddock was connected. Soon afterwards Major Haddock was 
arrested by order of the Secretary of War. A Court Martial was coh- 
vened in his case, and Hon. Risroe Conkling was authorized by the War 
Department to I'epresent the govei'muent at his trial." 

The obvious meaning of this statement is, that I 
was duly informed of Major HaddocMs misconduct, 
but neglected, or refused, to relieve him from duty, or 
bring him to trial ; and therefore it is less remarkable 
that I should hire Allen to destroy Mr. Colliding^ who 
was proceeding against Major Haddock. Hence I am 
forced to examine the Committee's statement. 

Now, is it true that I received the " detailed re- 
ports of specific acts of official dishonesty commit- 
ted by Haddock'''' f And, first, as to Meloys report, 

* This Edward Meloy was one of Theodore Allen's pals. The New 
York Sun of July 11, 1891, says of these two witnesses used by the 
Committee: '"When Allen killed Eddie Molloy in 1878. Mrs. Allen re- 
tained Howe & Hummel to procure a divorce. Mr. Hummel says that 
Mrs. Alleu could have caused her husband's conviction for the killing 
had she wished. She was a milliner, with a shop under the Continental 
Hotel, and a very pretty woman when he married her. He was insanely 
jealous, and employed Molloy as a spy on her. He believed that Molloy had 
played false and had encouraged lovers to visit Mr*. Allen in his absence. 
He followed Molloy to the house on the northwest corner of Broadway 
and Houston Street. There Allen fired a pistol, and Molloy fell dead. 
Allen ran to Police Headquarters and gave himself up, claiming that the 
shooting was accidental. He was never tried, although the Grand Jury 
indicted him for murder in the first degree." 



116 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

which the Committee say was made to me, and dated 
Febi'iiary 3, 1865. As there was no evidence offered 
on tliis subject, except the testimony of J/e/r^y himself, 
we can readily test the accuracy of the statement by a 
reference to the testimony of that witness, from which 
it will appear that he never made any such ve'port. 
Here is what he says (page 196) : 

" Question. ' Did you in that report make any return or state- 
ment with regard to Major Haddoclc? ' 
' ' Ansicer. ' No, sir. ' 

" Qi/estmi. ' When was that report made to Colonel Baker? ' 
" A?7swer. ' On the 3d day of February, 1865.' " 

It seems that Meloy did make a report, not^ hoiv- 
ever, to me, but to Colonel Baker j and even in that 
report he referred, to Captain Crandall and others, hut 
not to Major Iladdoch. So that so much of the state- 
ment as alleges that Meloy reported anything to me 
against Major Haddock is incorrect, and about this 
there could have been no mistake, for the Committee 
could not have confounded it with the report of the 
latter part of March, which Meloy says he made to 
Colonel Baker (and which nobody has ever seen), for 
that was not the proper date, nor was it made to me. 

The next is the report of Peter La France, dated 
February 28. This was a complaint of a substitute 
broker at Elmira; and as, at this date, no suspicion 
against Major Haddock had reached my office, it was 
treated by my assistant like all similar communica- 
tions — referred to the officer complained of for his 
information, and was not brought to my notice. Such 
complaints reached my office by the hundred. But 
supposing I had received, read and inwardly digested 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 117 

this particular one, an inspection of it shows that the 
acts of which La France complains were not the acts of 
ivhich Major Haddock 'W as convicted ; so that it would 
not have informed me of any fact of which Major 
Haddock ivas guilty^ if it had been brought to my 
attention. 

The next statement in this paragraph is, that 

" two of the alleged accomplices of Haddock in the fraudulent prac- 
tices reported, named Webel and Da'tnn, were arrested and afterwards 
sent to the penitentiary. Haddock himself, however, was not then 
arrested, nor relieved from duty." 

The statement that Webel and Dalton were accom- 
plices of Major Haddock is not proven ; nor does there 
appear to have been any connection between them, as 
the record of the trial of Wehel and Dcdton, and the 
record of Major Haddock^s case, all of which are on 
file in the War Department, fully disclose, and which 
are a standing refutation of this assertion of the Com- 
mittee. 

The report then continues: 

"But, on the 15th day of March, 1865, Col. L. C. Baler tele- 
graphed to Provost Marshal General Fry that he had discovered most 
astounding enlistment frauds at Elmira, with which Major Haddock 
was connected." 

How did the Committee learn this fact ? There 
is no mention made of this dispatch in any of the 
published evidence! The Committee not only sup- 
pressed a complete series of documents submitted in 
evidence in my defense, and denied or doubted the 
genuineness of two of them, quoted by my counsel in 
his argument, but they appear to have extracted /Vo^m 
these documents the single one, named above, which. 



118 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



taken alone, seemed to be against me, and used it 
as evidence. That telegram, as before stated, nowhere 
appears in evidence ; but it was among the twenty- 
three papers submitted in my defense on this point, 
and is the only one among them which the Committee 
present. 

That twenty-three several and distinct official 
pa23ers, numbered from 1 to 23, embracing all my 
essential correspondence and official action in the 
Hoboken case, were not only offered, hut admitted, in 
evidence, by the Committee, is a fact that can be 
proved by witnesses, including the Committee's sworn 
reporter. And after these exhibits had been presented 
to the Committee (and some of them read as present- 
ed), at the request of the District Attorney of New 
York, the Secretary of War directed me to proceed to 
New York, where my testimony was desired in a case 
wherein the subject of the Hoboken enlistments was 
involved. Desiring to use a portion of these papers 
on that occasion, I had copies of them prepared by the 
clerks in my office, which copies I placed in the hands 
of my counsel, who asked the privilege of withdraw- 
ing the original, and submitting the copies, which was 
objected to until the Committee had heard the argu- 
ment, and considered the testimony, and the Committee 
retained in their possession both the originals and 
copies. 

After the argument was completed, I despatched 
a messenger to the Committee with a letter, addressed 
to the senior of the two members who were present 
when these twenty-three papers were received in evi- 
dence, which letter is as follows : 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



119 



'WAR DEPARTMENT, 

PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL'S OFFICE, 

Washington, D. C, July 9, 1866. 
Hon. B. M. BOYER, House of Representatives : 

Dear Sir : I beg leave to remind you of my application, and your 
decision thereon, for a lot of original papers, submitted in evidence by 
me to the Committee of which you are a member. The request for the 
papers was made by me dviring the last day on which the Committee 
took testimony. The civil suit which I then told you of, has, I be- 
lieve, been twice postponed on account of the absence of these papers 
and myself. The trial, as I am now informed, takes place in New York 
City on the 11th instant. I therefore request that the original papers 
in question (those in the Hoboken case) be returned to me to-day. I 
would remark, that 1 have some time since prejiared and furnished the 
reporter of the Committee — Mr. Smilh with certified copies of these 
papers, so that he has now both copies and originals. 

I address you on this subject, instead of the Chairman because 
you were presiding when I previously applied for the papers, and will 
remember the circumstances. 

I am, sir, very truly and respectfully. 

Your obedient servant, 
(Signed) JAMES B. FRY, 

Provost Marshal General. ' ' 

Id coinpliauce with this request, the said origi- 
nals were returned to me by a page of the House. 
Among them were the txoo letters embraced in Mr. Rid- 
dles argument, and the telegraphic disixitch of Col- 
onel Baher to me, of March 15, 1865, an extract from 
which is the one xoe are now discnssing, viz. : that " on 
the 15th day of March, 1865, Colonel L. C. Balcer 
telegraphed to Provost Marshal General Fry, to the 
effect that he had discovered most astounding enlist- 
ment frauds at Elmira, with which Major Iladdoch 
was connected," and this dispatch, as before stated, is 
nowhere to be found in the record, nor is there any 
reference to it in the testimony published by the 
Committee. 



120 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

It is, therefore, not correct, as stated by the Com- 
mittee, that " detailed reports of specific acts of official 
dishonesty committed by Haddock had been made 
to General Fry " ; nor that " Haddock's accomplices 
were arrested and afterwards sent to the penitentiary " ; 
nor is there any testimony, accompanying the repoTt, 
that supports the statement that " Col, Baker tele- 
graphed to General Fry that he had discovered as- 
tounding enlistment frauds at Elmira with which 
Major Haddoch was connected." 

That this is so, there can be no question. The 
record proves it. Moreover, the record not only fails 
to prove the statements of the Committee, but it es- 
tablishes beyond doubt or cavil exactly the reverse of 
those statements. Yet this insinuation as to a com- 
plicity on my part with Major Haddock is presented 
with a stately formality and an affected sincerity of 
purpose. They inform us it was charged against Gen- 
ei'al Fry by Mr. Conkling, and then proceed to argue 
the probability of its truth. 

" Now mark how plain a tale shall put them 
down." 

The record of Major Haddock's trial lay upon the 
table of the Committee for six consecutive weeks. It 
was the constant subject of reference by counsel on 
both sides, and by the Committee. It embraced a 
complete history of Major Haddoclcs official life as 
Acting Assistant Provost Marshal General. In that 
record is set forth each separate and distinct 
offense of Major Haddock, with time, place and cir- 
cumstances, — his motives, object, associates, accom- 
plices, instruments, — everything which Mr. Conklmg 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



121 



could collect, by reason of the appointment he held, 
and the extraordinary powers and means of obtaining 
information with which he had been invested. The 
testimony alone comprises nearly fifteen hundred 
pages, with all of which Mr. Coiikling was entirely 
familiar. In all this record there is not one sentence, 
syllable, or word, directly or indirectly charging me 
with the most remote suspicion of complicity with 
Major Haddock^ or any knowledge, guilty or otherwise, 
as to Major Haddoclc's offenses, or with any effort to 
conceal them. 

The questions as to Major HaddocUs crimes and 
who wei'e his accomplices, had been judicially deter- 
mined. I was never accused. Yet, upon this point, 
the Committee are silent. They ignore proof which 
completely vindicates me ; they deny that such proof 
was ever presented, and then select from that ivhich 
they assure us was never offered, an unfavorable ex- 
tract, and incorporate it in their report, as being in 
evidence. 

The reader of this review cannot fail to be struck 
with the disregard shown by the Committee for their 
own record, but it is not deemed necessary to dwell 
upon this. 

In the foregoing review, all the important points, 
and some rather unimportant ones, made in the I'eport 
of the Committee, have been discussed. Let the reader 
judge both the Committee and me by the record they 
have made of the case. 

In conclusion, it may be asserted with confidence : 

I. That said Committee was an unfair tribunal. 

II. That every material allegation of my letter to 



122 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

Mr. Blaine was sustained in its legitimate meaning by 
the evidence presented to that Committee. 

These allegations were substantially as follows: 

1. That Mr. Conl-Ung made a case for himself by his dispatch of 
July 29, 1863. 

3. That he received pay from the United States for service as 
Judge Advocate and pay as a member of Congress for the same time. 

3. That he was as anxious to prevent investigation at Utica as to 
secure it at Elmira. This charge would have been more fully estab- 
lished if the documents which accompanied my letter to Mr. Blaine 
had been duly considered and the testimony offered had been admitted. 

4. That his previous relations with me were of such a nature as 
to explain the animosity apparent in his attack upon me in the House 
of Representatives. 

5. That he endeavored and failed to secure any modification of 
my course in regard to the removal of Captain Richardson. 

6. That he was instrumental in securing the appointment of Cap- 
tain CrandaU. 

7. That he attempted and failed to secure Captain Cra?idnir s res- 
toration, after removal. 

8. That he was clothed with extraordinary powers for the investi- 
gation of frauds and the prosecution of offenders in Western New York 

A-. 9. That it was his duty — and a duty which, if his indefinite 
charges made in the House against me were true, he grossly neglected 
— to report promptly anything which came to his knowledge pointing 
to my complicity in the frauds perpetrated upon the government in my 
branch of the service. 

These propositions have been established from 
the evidence admitted by the Committee — chiefly 
from evidence which the Committee ignored in their 
report, and partly from an application of this evidence 
to the statements made by me,^as they were in fact. 

Not only did this Committee admit evidence 
bearing upon the charges against me in the Hoboken 
affair, manifestly with great injustice to me, but they 
failed to consider in my favor the documentary 
evidence in that case presented by my counsel, and 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



123 



denied ever having seen the documents, although 
using one of them in their own report, which, taken 
by itself, appeared to militate against me. Among 
twenty-three collated documents, which, together, ex- 
plained the Hoboken case, the Committee saw only 
one which, taken alone, might bear a construction 
unfavorable to me. Here I leave the Committee's 
Report, in order to close the whole subject by a few^ 
general remarks. 



Chapter VL 
general remarks, 

In estimating the injustice of Mr. Conkling's as- 
sault upon my private and official character, it is 
proper to recall the fact that the work of the Provost 
Marshal General's Bureau had been completed. The 
war was over, and a million of soldiers which that 
Bureau had mustered had been or were being dis- 
charged. Over twenty-six millions of commutation 
money collected by the Pj-ovost Marshal General had 
been turned into the treasury, and every dollar of 
public money entrusted to his keeping had been prop- 
erly accounted for; and, notwithstanding the unpopu- 
larity of the Conscription Laws, by which men were 
enforced into the military service, and the many in- 
stances of hardship and suffering which the enforce- 
ment of the draft occasioned, by no person except Mr. > 
Conkling had my integrity been assailed. 

My accounts have all been passed upon by the 
accounting officers and found to be correct. 

The records of the War Department show an 
honorable service for more than forty years, including 
my administration of the Provost Marshal General's 
Office. 

During the whole period of my official service, I 
have had the approval of my military superiors. My 
only accuser was Mr. Conkling, who felt aggrieved — 
I having caused to be dismissed from office certain 

124 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 125 

officials of his district who were, I believe, his friends 
<and supporters, and had been appointed on his recom- 
mendation. 

Incensed by Mr. Conkling's unjust and erroneous 
accusations, uttered in a forum in which I could not 
appear, J prepared a letter on the subject to Mr. 
Bhiiue, then a member of the House, which, at his in- 
stance, was read at the clerk's desk, by permission of 
the House. 

This letter was intended as a refutation of the 
charges preferred by Mr. Conkling, and cited official 
records which showed a failure on the part of Mr. 
Conkling to perform the duties of a Special Judge 
Advocate as directed by the War Department, by 
failing to investigate or prosecute frauds in the 
AVestern Division of New York, except in one case at 
Elmira, for which case he received from the govern- 
ment the sum of three thousand dollars, besides his 
salary as a member of Congress. 

It will hardly be claimed that I had no i-ight to 
deny or refute the accusation of Mr. Conkling, nor 
that I was compelled to have the consent of the House 
of Representatives to defend my reputation. 

The accusations had been uttered in the House 
of Kepresentatives, wei"e piinted in the Glohe, and 
published to the world. What was I to do ? The 
courts were not open to me, for Mr. Conkling could 
not be held accountable before them for official utter- 
ances in the House of Representatives ; and I aimed 
to set myself right by presenting a true statement in 
the form of a letter to Mr. Blaine, the member of the 
House who had defended me. The desired effect was 



126 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

in fact produced, for the committee of investigation 
not only failed to find any of the accusations against 
me true, but failed to investigate them, notwithstand- 
ing they were ordered by the House to do so. 

It could not be expected that suffering under the 
insult of Mr. Conkling's accusations, I would be in a 
frame of mind to view the sit nation with complacency. 
Honey is not used for a writing fluid in repelling 
calumny. I was forced to set down in plain words 
what I believed to be a true statement of the case, and 
fortify it by the official records. 

This letter, accompanied by official documents 
corroborating it, gave oifense to Mr. Conkling and his 
friends, and was, long after it had been read in the 
House, regarded as a breach of privilege, and the 
Chairman of the Investigating Committee, in urging 
the adoption of his report censuring me, and eulogizing 
Mr. Conkling, said : 

' ' Mr. Speaker, I will state to the House — I would not have stated it 
but for the inquiry just presented by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
— why the Committee, after having found a flagrant violation of 
privileges of a member of the House, and of the House itself, stopped 
without recommending any proceeding by the House against the cul- 
prit. 

•'The inquiry is a very pertinent one, which would naturally occur 
to every mind, and one Avhich received the careful attention of the 
Committee. ' ' 

After giving various reasons the Chairman con- 
tinues : 

' • Then there was another reason — the most potent of all — that oper- 
ated upon the mind of the Committee in omitting to present any further 
resolution. It is that the breach of privilege of the House was com- 
mitted so entirely in conjunction with the action of a member of thi.s 
House, that the two cannot be separated. The letter is written contain- 
ing on its face the evidence that it was meant to be used somewhere. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



127 



and was not designed simply for the information of the gentleman from 
Maine [Mr. Blaine], to whom it was addressed." 

From this statement it is clear that summary pro- 
ceedings against me would have followed had it not 
been that a member of the House was implicated in 
the transaction, and it would seem that such "divin- 
ity doth hedge " a member of Congress * that he not 
only escapes punishment for his own offense, but also 
protects the other " culprit." 

The Chairman, continuing his remarks in support 
of the Committee's report, having been the Judge who 
had tried the case, and supposed to be free from bias, 
prejudice and favoritism, added : 

"I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I repeat what has 
been said in this report, that a more carelul and more malicious and 
wanton violation of the privileges of the House and its metnbers has 
not been brought to the notice of any member of the Committee. There 
is not to be found any more hurtful libel upon any member of this 
body in the history of its proceedings. It is due to ourselves, it is due 
to this body, if we are to preserve the dignity of the character of a rep- 
resentative of the American people, that such indignities should cease. 
I am unwilling to consume the time of the House, but I am unwilling 
to sit down without saying the House should d<> this justice to my 
friend from New York \^Mr. CottHing], a justice he is entitled to, etc." 

One would suppose after reading the Chairman's 
commentary on my letter, delivered ex cathedra as the 
judgment of the Chairman of the Committee — the 
chief judge of the tribunal that had tried the issue 
between Mr. Conkling and me — that the letter had 

* A stronger case is that of Preston S. Brooks. While a member of 
the House, in 185G, he went to the Senate Chamber where Senator Sum- 
ner sat quietly at his desk, and for words spoken in debate, struck him 
ou the head with a cane, felling him to the floor, and there beat him 
nearly to death. Brooks was not punished by either House or Senate. 
A resolution for his expulsion was offered in the House, but failed to 
pass. Brooks resigned and was re elected. 



128 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

done irreparable mischief to Mr. Conkling, and struck 
a fatal blow at the "dignity of the character of the 
representatives of the American people." 

But after a careful perusal of the letter it will 
be discovered that it is chiefly devoted to a refutation 
of the accusations made by Mr. Conkling on the floor 
of the House, where I had no right or opportunity to 
be heard. 

An examination of the letter will show that the 
only cJiarges preferred against Mr. Conkling are : 

First, "That as hereafter shown, he, Mr, Conk- 
ling, was as zealous in preventing prosecutions at 
Utica as he was in making them at Elmira ; and the 
main ground of the difiiculty between Mr. Conkling 
and myself has been that I wanted exposure at both 
places, while he wanted concealment at one." 

Second, " Whether his [Mr. Conkling's] action in 
exercising the functions of Judge Advocate and receiv- 
ing pay therefor from the United States to the amount 
of $3000, while receiving his compensation as a mem- 
ber of Congress, was a violation of the letter or spirit, 
or both, of Article T., Section 2, of the Constitution, 
I leave others to decide." 

In reference to these charges, it is enough I think 
to recall the facts that Mr. Conkling zealously prose- 
cuted the Elmira frauds, but made no effort to prose- 
cute the Utica frauds. 

On the otlier hand, he used his influence and 
power at the War Department in behalf of the ac- 
cused parties at Utica. Mr. Conkling was appointed a 
Special Judge Advocate by the Secretary of War on 
the 3d day of April, 1865, and directed "to investi- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



129 



gate all cases of fraud in the Provost Marshal's De- 
partment of the Western Division of New York, and 
all misdemeanors connected with reci'uiting" 

The -first Provost Marshal of the Disti-ict, Rich- 
ardson, had been dismissed, and the second Provost: 
Marshal and members of the Board of Enrollment of 
the Utica District in the Western Division of New 
York, had been suspended from office for malfeasance 
on the recommendation of Major Luddington, Assistant 
Inspector General, U. S. A., who had been sent to 
Utica by the War Department to investigate the man- 
agement of that office. 

After a thoi-ough examination, Major Luddington 
made a report concluding with the following : " I re- 
spectfully recommend that every member of the Board 
of Enrollment for the twenty-first [Utica] District of 
New York be dismissed the service, and that the 
money in possession of Captain Crandallbe seized." 

On the 4th of February previous, Col. N. G. Ax- 
tell, 192d New York Volunteers, stationed at Albany, 
protested to the Adjutant General of the Army, in 
which he said : " The recruits mustered at Utica are, 
without doubt, bounty jumpers, and should not have 
been mustered by an intelligent mustering officer." 

Lieutenant Lott^ commanding subrendezvous at 
Auburn, reported March 4th, " nine-tenths of tlie re- 
cruits sent here from that [Utica] office are the most 
worthless set of scoundrels you ever put your eyes on;" 
and on the 20th of February the present, 1891, Sec- 
retary of the Navy, Hon. B. F. Tracy then command- 
ing the rendezvous at Elmira, made a report to the 
office of the Adjutant General in which he said : " The 



130 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

[Utica] district is filling its quota with bounty jump- 
ers. Fifteen deserted from Auburn in one squad. 
This is giving to the District an undue advantage over 
the other Districts. There is a rush of bounty jump- 
ers from Utica." 

All this evidence, together with the fact that the 
Provost Marshal of the Utica District had in his pos- 
session over twenty-six thousand dollars, belonging to 
recruits, and bounty brokers, which he had refused to 
turn over, although repeatedly ordered by his superior 
officer so to do, was placed in Mr. Conkling's hands, 
on the day [April 3], he was appointed Special Judge 
Advocate to " investigate all cases of fraud in the 
Provost Marshal's Department of the Western Division 
of New York, and all misdemeanors connected with 
recruiting." 

Instead of making any investigation of the Utica 
office he at once, before leaving the War Department, 
on the day of his appointment to investigate all cases 
of fraud in the Western Division of New York, in 
which Division Utica was included, wi'ote a letter to 
the Secretary of War, in which he said, 

' ' Having been authorized and requested by the Secretary of War, 
to examine certain transactions in the Bureau of the Provost Marshal 
General relating to the Western Division of the State of New York, I 
advise and recommend that the order suspending Captain Peter B. 
Crandall and the members of the Enrolling Board be revoked and 
that said Board be reinstated," 

thus showing that he knew his appointment covered 
the alleged Utica frauds, and taking jurisdiction of 
them, but moving at once to prevent prosecutions in- 
stead of to make them. 

Mr. Conklinfi: made no investio-ation of the Utica 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 131 

fmuds, there were no arrests, no prosecution, and no 
trial there, while he devoted his services to the value 
of S3000, to the prosecution of Major Haddock who 
was tried by court-martial at Elmira ; and the fact 
that he had been appointed to prosecute all cases of 
fraud in the Division which included both Elmira and 
Utica, and did zealously prosecute in Elmira and did 
not prosecute in Utica, but on the contrary, appealed 
to the Seci-etary of War in behalf of the accused 
pai'ties, was the reason why I stated that Mr, Conk- 
ling " as hereafter shown, was as zealous in preventing 
prosecutions at Utica as he was in making them at 
Elmira." 

As already stated the letter was chiefly devoted 
to a refutation of the charges made by Mi'. Conkling 
on the floor of the House. It also pointed out the 
fact that fi'auds had been perpetrated in the Utica 
District, and that Mr. Conkling had been appointed a 
Special Judge Advocate to investigate them. That 
the Utica frauds havinc: been brouo;ht to Mr. Conk- 
ling's attention, and he having failed to investigate or 
prosecute them, I stated in the letter that, " as here- 
after shown, ]Mi'. Conkling was as zealous in prevent- 
ing prosecutions at Utica as he was in making them at 
Elmira," and accompanied the letter with authenticated 
copies of the AVar Department records, upon which 
the letter was founded, showing the existence of the 
Utica frauds, and showing also that instead of investi- 
gating or prosecuting them, Mr, Conkling on the day 
he was appointed Special Judge Advocate, and before 
leaving the War Department advised the Secretary of 
Wai', in writing, to revoke the order suspending from 



132 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

office the delinquent officers at Utica, and recom- 
mended tlieir reinstatement. 

It was upon the official records that I based my 
assertion as to Mr. Conkling's failure to investigate 
the Utica frauds, for I preface that assertion with the 
words, " as hereafter shown "—referring to the official 
records accompanying the letter. 

The Committee omitted the official documents 
from their report, and so far as apjiears gave them 
no consideration, refused to receive the testi- 
mony which I offered in support of my assertion con- 
cerning Mr. Conkling's action and inaction in the 
jDrosecution of frauds, and then pronounced my asser- 
tion to be entirely without foundation. But even 
with the assertion thus shorn of the documents upon 
which I based it and deprived of the testimony I 
offered in its support, the Committee's view of it is 
hardly sound. Unbiased minds will, 1 think, admit 
that my assertion was merely my opinion based upon 
the documents I gave with it. If the documents sus- 
tain the assertion then my opinion is sound, if not, 
then I am mistaken. Whether I am mistaken or not I 
certainly had the moral riglit to present the docu- 
mentary facts in my office, under the provocation of 
Mr. Conkling's accusations. 

Upon the second charge, there is no dispute as to 
the facts. It is conceded by the Committee that Mr. 
Conkling was appointed a Special Judge Advocate to 
investigate frauds in the Western Division of New 
York, and that he performed the services of Judge 
Advocate while he was under pay as a Member of Con- 
gress from the Utica District; that he received from 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



133 



the United States for bis services as Special Judge 
Advocate $3000. and his salary as a Congressman be- 
sides; and I believing that was a violation of law, called 
attention to the facts, but without expressing any opin- 
ion, adding that the question was one " for others to de- 
cide," and that is all there is of the second charge. 
Yet, by far the greater portion of the Committee's 
report is an ai-gument attempting to show that Mr. 
Conklino' had not violated the law. 

The best that could be said of the transaction was 
the statement by the Chairman of the Committee in 
reply to Mr. Randoll, of Pennsylvania, viz.: 

Mr. Randall : 

' ' Preliminary to the ' question ' I desire to say a word or two. I 
have had no time to read this report, nor do I wish in any manner to 
enter into the personal matters to which it relates, but I want to know 
of the Chairman whether this Committee in their report justify the 
taking of employment by a Member of Congress who is in receipt of his 
salary as a IMember of Congress, and taking payment for such employ- 
ment in addition to bis emoluments as a Member of Congress. I want 
to know whether the Committee irrespective of the parties involved in 
this case, justify that or not." 

Mv. Shellaharger : 

' ' The Committee find in their report that a Member of Congress 
who is qualified as such shall not hold any office or receive any com- 
pensation therefor. They find that a Member of Congress, after the 
4th of March, the day on which his pay commences under the law, 
cannot receive the salary of any other office during that time. A Mem- 
ber of Congress may be employed by the Government as counsel, and 
such employment may be competently performed, and that is what 
occurred in this case. ' ' 

Mi\ Randall : 

'• Then I understand the gentleman to say that he believed a ]\Iem- 
ber of Congress, subsequent to the 4th of March, and prior to the ex- 
piration of his term, can be employed by the Government in another 
capacity, and receive compensation therefor. ' ' 



134 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

Mr. SJiellaharger : 

" That is what the Committee find on the subject, if the employ- 
ment is not an ofl3.ce." 

Mr. RamlaU : 

' ' Can he be employed against the Government ?' ' 

Mr. Shellaharger : 

"In favor of the Government he may be employed; — against the 
6ro»er??»iie« Hie cannot be employed, because there is a statute of 1864 
which expressl}^ provides in this identical case of Mr. CorilUng, that is 
to say — it provides no Member of Congress shall be permitted to be em- 
ployed by any person in any proceeding before a Court-martial, 
furnishing a complete Ipgislative determination that he may 
be employed in that identical case on the other side, because the pro- 
vision of 1864 in saying that a Member of Congress may not be em- 
ployed by any other person, would imply that he may be employed in 
that identical case by the Government itself. ' ' 

Mr. Handall : 

' ' That is a fine distinction, — a distinction without a difference. 
If it be not a violation of the letter, it is to my mind a violation of its 
spirit."* 

* Mr. Randall mijcht have added that while the act of 1864 forbids 
the employment of members of Congress against the Government, the act 
of 1808 as interpreted by Attorney General Wii-t distinctly forbids their 
employment for a valuable consideration bv the Government, and thus 
the Committee's inference from the act of 1864 is contradicted by the ex- 
press terms and meaning of the act of 1808 as interpreted by the Attor- 
ney General [see his opinion in full Chapter V.]. He says : ''The 
fourth section uses the following pointed and comprehensive terms : 
'That if any officer of the United States, in behalf of the United States 
shall, directly or indirectly, make, or enter into, any contract, bargain 
or agreement, in writing or otherwise, other than such as are herein ex- 
cepted, with any Member of Congress, such officer so offending,' &c , &c. 
Now, I think it cannot be denied that an engagement with a gentleman of 
the bar, whereby, for a valuable consideration, he is to render his profes- 
sional services in a given case, is a contract, a bargain, an agreement, in 
the legal sense of these terms (and in none other are they to be regarded); 
and it is a bargain, contract, or agreement, other than the two which 
had been previously excepted by the Act. It is therefore, a contract for- 
bidden expressly by the fourth section of the Act. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 135 

Mr. Randall, however, puts it stroiigei" than the 
language of my letter, which reads : " Whether his 
action [Conkling] in exercising the function of Judge 
Advocate and receiving pay therefor from the United 
States to the amount of $3000 while receiving his 
compensation as a member of Congress was a viola- 
tion of the letter or spirit, or both, of Article L, Section 
2, of the Constitution, Heave others to decider 

This opinion, expressed by Mr. HandaJl, does not 
seem to have shocked the sensibilities of the House. 
It did not occur to any of the Members that their 
''privileges" or the privileges of the House had been 
assailed, or its dignity insulted by Mr. Randall. Yet 
when a less obnoxious presentation of the matter was 
written down in a letter by me and read at the clerk's 
desk, by the consent of the House, the Chairman of 
the Committee appointed to investigate the subject 
Judicially, having, as he claimed, made an exhaustive 
examination and report, declared on the floor of the 
House that "A more careful and more malicious and 
wanton violation of the privileges of the House, and 
of its members, has not been brought to the notice of 
any member of the Committee," and at the close of the 
debate added : 



" Should it be objected that this is sticking in the letter oi the law to 
the disregard of its jjolicy. I cannot accede to the objection. 

" The policy of the law is to prevent the exercise of executive in- 
fluence over the Members of Congress by the means of contracts ; and 
whether the contract be for the service of a lawjer. a physician, or a 
mail carrier, an army purveyor, or a turnpike road maker, it seems to 
me to be equally within the policy and mischief of the law. The only 
difference is in the permanency of the engagement ; but a succession of 
single engagements is quite as mischievous as a contract in solido ; and 
if the distinction is to be allowed, the law might be easily evaded." 



136 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

" I am unwilling to sit down without saying the 
House should do this justice to my friend from New 
York " [Mr. Conkling], but made no reference to his 
" friend's " assault on my character, which called out 
the letter under consideration. 



The resolution directed the Committee " to in- 
vestigate the statement and charges made by Honora- 
ble Koscoe Conkling in his place last week against 
Provost Marshal General Fry, and his bureau : whether 
any frauds had been perpetrated in his office in con- 
nection \vitli the recriiitino; service." 

This was the main object of the resolution. The 
Provost Marshal General of the United States was a 
high officer of the government, clothed with extraor- 
dinary authority by law, and entrusted with the col- 
lection and disbursement of millions of public money. 
On his integrity and efficiency depended the success 
or failure of the recruitment of the armies that w^ere 
fighting for the maintenance of the government. 

Being charged by a Member of Congress on the 
floor of the House with malfeasance in office, and 
inefficiency, it was not strange that a committee was 
ordered by the House to investigate, and discover 
whether these gi'ave charges against a trusted officer 
of the government, of high rank, whose reputation 
was hitherto without stain or blemish, who had been 
honored for gallant conduct in the field, w^as guilty or 
innocent. For it was important that the House and 
the country should know whether this public servant 
had betrayed his trust and brought discredit upon the 
service and the country, or had been falsely accused. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE FRY CONTROVERSY. 



137 



The House directed the Committee " Also to 
examine into the statements made by Gen. Fry in his 
communication to Hon. Mr. Blaine, read in the House." 

It will be seen, therefore, that the main work of 
the Committee was the investigation of the Conkling 
charges against the Provost Marshal General, but the 
Committee confined its labor to the vindication of Mr. 
Conkling, and paid no attention to the charges which 
it was especially directed to investigate. 

The excuse was, in the words of the Committee, 

' ' In consideration that the character of a Member of the House of 
Representatives has been publicly assailed with serious charges in a 
letter emanating from the head of an important bureau of the govern- 
ment, addressed to another Member of the House of Representatives, 
and by him caused to be read to the House, and thus made a part of 
the published and permanent record of its proceedings, we deem that it 
was the privilege of the Member thus gravely charged, and due also to 
the House itself, that your Conamittee should froceed witliout delay to 
the investigation of at least that branch of the case which relates to the 
charges preferx-ed by Provost Marshal General Fry against the Hon. 
Roscoe Conkling ' ' 

It seems not to have concerned the Committee 
that the character of an officei* of the army of high 
rank, " the head of an important bureau of the gov- 
ernment," had been " publicly assailed with serious 
charges " in the House, " and thus made a part of the 
published and permanent record of its proceedings." 

Furthermore, the Member charged was not ac- 
cused in his official character as a Member of Congress, 
but in his official character of an inferior, quasi-military 
officer — a SpecialJudge Advocate for a temporary and 
local service. The Committee apparently believed 
that it was of more importance to the country, at least 
to the House, that a Committee of the House should 



138 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



be able to report the efficient service of the Special 
Judge Advocate for the Western Division of New 
York, than to show whether the Provost Marshal 
General of the United States was corrupt and ineffi- 
cient, or honest and capable in the management of the 
great interests which had been placed in his hands. 

NATURE OF A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. 

A committee of investigation appointed by the 
Speaker, pursuant to a resolution of the House, is a 
tribunal possessing the function of a court of justice. 
It is clothed with great authority : with the power to 
send for persons and papers ; to subpoena witnesses ; 
to administer oaths ; to hold secret sessions ; and is 
armed with the power of the Government to enforce 
its mandates, while the public treasury is at its dis- 
posal for such expenditures as in its discretion are 
deemed necessary. In an ordinary case, where the 
controversy is not of a political nature, there seems to 
be no o'ood reason whv a committee of the House of 
Representatives, free from bias or prejudice, with none 
of its members the self-proclaimed "friend" of either 
party to the controversy to be investigated, should not 
do justice to all concerned. 

But where a political advantage is to be achieved 
as, for instance, in a contested election case, the aver- 
age Congressman's impartiality cannot wholly resist 
party fealty, and the contestant is apt to be admitted 
or rejected according to his political opinions. This 
fact exhibits the value of a report of a House Com- 
mittee where the members of the committee are inter- 
ested personally or politically in the result. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVKRSY. 



139 



111 the Fifty-first Congress where a committee was 
appointed to investigate charges preferred against 
Green B. Raiim, and after several days had been con- 
sumed, it was discovered that one of the membei'S of 
the committee was personally and pecuniarily inter- 
ested in the matter being investigated. AVhen exposure 
came, the member retired from the committee. 

Almost contemporaneous with the Conkling-Fry 
Committee of Investigation was another Committee of 
the House, which investigated the case of Patrick 
Wood, who had assaulted a Member of Congress in 
the city of Norfolk, Va., over two hundred miles dis- 
tant from the Capitol. The majority of the House 
and of the Committee, being in political accord with 
the " Member," the Committee judicially held that the 
assault of the Member in Norfolk was a breach of the 
privileges of the House sitting in Washington, and 
Wood was ari-ested by the Sergeant-at-arms, brought 
to Washington, and imprisoned for a period of ninety 
days in the common jail of the District of Columbia. 

In 1876 an Investigating Committee of the House 
judicially decided that Hallet Kilbourn, a citizen of 
AVashington, was guilty of a breach of privilege and 
in contempt of the Committee and the House, for re- 
fusing to give to the Committee information in ref- 
erence to his private business, and, by order of the 
House, he was imprisoned in the jail of the District of 
Columbia for a period of forty-five days, when he was 
discharged on habeas corpus, and in a suit against the 
Sergeant-at-arms of the House, he recovered judgment 
for $100,000 for false imprisonment, the Supreme 
Court of the United States deciding that the Commit- 



140 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

tee and the House liad no authority to make the arrest, 
or inflict any penalty whatever. 

The investigation in the Kilbourn case was politi- 
cal, the object being apparently to bring discredit on 
certain officials of the Administration. 

A lai'ge majority of the House of Representatives 
which oi'dered the Conkling ¥rj investigation was in 
political accord with Mr. Conkling, and was distin- 
guished for party zeal and its desire to perpetuate 
political supremacy. The leader of the Republican 
side was Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Conklino;, a distino-uished Member • of the 
House, and Mr. Shellabarger, his political and personal 
friend, and a few others were eminent in leadership. 
When therefore a Committee was appointed to inves- 
tigate this affair it was not remarkable that Mr. Conk- 
ling's " friend," Mr. Shellabargei", was appointed its 
Chairman, although he was not the mover of the reso- 
lution raising the Committee, and his selection for the 
place was not according to the usages of the House. 

With a Committee composed as this was with 
Mr. Conkling's personal friend its Chairman, it is ap- 
parent that he was well on the way towards a com- 
plete vindication. 

PRIVILEGES. 

With the foregoing history of the case in mind, 
let us consider the facts and principles of " privileges " 
which apply to it. 

The constitution says that "for any speech or de- 
bate in either House " a member " shall not be ques- 
tioned in any other place." Mr. Blaine, a member of 
the House of Representatives, " questioned " Mr. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 141 

Conkling on the floor of the House for a speech made 
there, and in doing so used information furnished by 
me ; but neither I nor any one else, so far as I know, 
ever " questioned " Mr. Conkling " in any other place." 

The letter was read at the Clerk's desk. The 
consent of the House furnished the oppoi'tunity for 
Mr. Blaine by using my letter to refute the calumnies 
with which Mr. Conkling had assailed me befoi'e the 
body in which these calumnies were uttered, and just 
when or how the breach of privilege by me occurred 
is not explained by the Committee, for there is no law 
that prohibits a citizen who has been accused in the 
House from being defended in the House, the consent 
of the House being first obtained. The prohibition is 
against questioning the member in another place, for 
words spoken in debate. 

An assumed intention on my part to have the 
letter read in the House was brought into the case. 
There is no evidence that I had such intention and 
certainly I had no power to enforce the reading. But 
aside from these facts^ is any human tribunal compe- 
tent to Judge and punish intentions alone ? At the 
instance of Mr, Blaine, my letter to him was read at 
the Clerk's desk, and no member disapproved, indeed 
Mr. Conkling urged that the reading be completed. 
Yet I was condemned months afterwards for breach 
of privilege, and for intending to get the hearing which 
the House freely granted without application or solici- 
tation from me. 

If the privilege of the House was assailed, it was 
assailed by its own consent. If the House had not 
consented to the reading of the letter, then the respon- 



142 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

sibility would have rested on the member introducing 
it, and under no aspect of the transaction can it fairly 
be charged to my account. 

It is stated by the Committee in its i-eport that 
. . . " indignities offered to the character or pro- 
ceeding of the National Legislature by libellous as- 
saults have been resented and punished both in Eng- 
land and in the United States as a breach of privi- 
lege ; and such assaults upon the official character of 
members have been held punishable as indignities 
committed ao-ainst the House itself." 

It will be observed that the Committee over- 
looked the fact that the so-called charges of my letter 
against Mr. Conkling are not assaults upon his offi- 
cial character as a Member of Congress ; but upon his 
official character as a Special Judge Advocate, a mat- 
ter with which the House was in no way concerned. 

It is true, as stated in the report of the Commit- 
tee (page 34) above quoted, that "breaches of privilege 
have been resented and punished both in England and 
in the United States." In England the instances are 
numerous, but in this country they are rare. The fol- 
lowing are some of the English precedents that sus- 
tain the statement of the Committee. 

In 1810 Sir Francis Burdett having published a 
letter reflecting on the House of Commons, his house 
was broken into by the Sergeant-at-arms, and he was 
committed to the Tower. [14 East, 293.] 

FloycUs case. FJoyde, for a slight offense, if it 
were one, against King James I., in speaking of his 
daughter and son-in-law, was adjudged by the House 
of Commons to be in contempt, his fortune was con- 



CONKLIXG AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 143 

fiscated, his body tortured, his name degraded, and 
himself imprisoned foT life. [2 How. State Tr. 
1143.] 

Richard Reynolds and Robert Wriglit^ for arrest- 
ing a servant of the Earl of Oxford, were ordered to 
be set on horseback near Westminster Hall, neither 
of them with cloak or hat, but to have on their 
breasts and backs papers expressing their fault., viz.: 
" For contemptuous breach of the privileges of Parlia- 
ment, aggravated by contemptuous speeches," and so 
to pass to the Fleet, where they are to be left pris- 
oners. 

In Murray^ 8 case. The Commons confined him 
a close prisoner for a breach of privilege of the House. 
He was denied pen and paper, or any communication 
with his friends. His health was suffering, but a 
physician was not allowed to visit him except upon 
the order of the House. [I. Wilson, 299.] 

George Gardner^ "For scandalizing the justice 
of the House, and for unjustly slandering the Lord 
Keeper," was ordered to stand in the pillory at AVest- 
minster, with a paper on his head declaring his offense, 
and to ride backward with the same paper to the 
Cross in Cheapside, and so to stand in the pillory 
there, and so to ride back to the Fleet prison. 

In tlie case of lay vs. Topliam. The House of 
Commons ordered the defendant, their Sergeant-at- 
arms, to arrest and imprison the plaintiff for having 
dared to exercise the common right of all Englishmen, 
of presenting a petition to the King, on the state of 
public affairs, when no Parliament existed. For this 
imprisonment an action was brought. 



144 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

The plea of justification under the warrant of the 
Speaker was overruled by the Court, for the law, says 
Lord Denman, was clear, and Lord EUenboi'ough 
points this out in a most forcible manner. [14 East, 
109.] 

Yet for this righteous judgment Chief Justice 
Pemberton and one of his brethren were summoned 
before the House, where they vindicated their conduct 
by unanswerable reasoning, but were, notwithstanding, 
committed to the prison of Newgate for the remainder 
of the session. 

In BelVs case, where the messenger of the House 
of Lords had received an umbrella from the owner at 
the door of the House, and had not returned it, and 
the owner sued for the value, and recovered, the House 
summoned both the owner and the Court officer befoi-e 
them. The plaintiff was discharged on his submis- 
sion, and the officei's, upon their declaring their igno- 
rance of the nature of the summons. [59 Lord's Jour- 
nal 199.] 

It was adjudged a contempt of the House of 
Lords to kill Lord Gal way's rabbits ; also to fish in 
Admiral Grifi&n's pool. [See Lord Denraan's Opinion 
in Stockdale vs. Hansard, 9 Adolphus and Ellis 
109.] 

Having recited these English precedents relied 
upon by the Committee, I next refer to the Amei-ican 
cases : 

Hallett KilhouTii, a citizen of the District of 
Columbia, was arrested by order of the House, by its 
Sergeant-at-arms, and imprisoned for forty-five da3^s in 
the District jail for a breach of the privileges of the 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



145 



House of Representatives, in refusing to disclose his 
private business to an investigating Committee. 

In an action for false imprisonment lie recovered 
a verdict of one hundred thousand dollars' damages 
against the Sergeant-at-arms, under a decision of the 
Supreme Court of the United States. [13 Otto, 
168.] 

Patriclc Woods, of Norfolk, Ya., as heretofore 
stated, was adjudged guilty of a breach of the privi- 
leges of the House of Representatives for engaging in 
a personal encounter with a Member of Congress in 
the streets of Norfolk, more than two hundred miles 
distant from the Capitol. 

He was arrested by the Sergeant-at-arms, and by 
order of the House imprisoned in the jail of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia for a period of three months. 

But there is no instance on record, in this country, 
where the reading of a letter by a member or the Clerk 
of the House has been adjudged by the House a 
breach of privilege by the writer of the letter, or by 
the member introducing it. 

The Committee states in its report (page 34) : 

'•Your Coinmittee ddera it proper most earnestly to protest against 
the practice which has obtained to some extent of causing letters from 
persons not members of the House to be read as part of a personal 
explanation, in which the motives of meoibers are criticised, their 
conduct censured, and they are called to anewer for words spoken in 
debate.'' 

It would seem from this that Mr. Blaine, in caus- 
ing my letter to be read in the House, was only con- 
forming to the practice which had to some extent 
obtained in the House of Representatives, but in no 



146 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

instance adjudged or regarded as a breach of privi- 
lege. 

It is stated in the Report of the Committee, that 
my letter was a libel on the official and personal char- 
acter of Mr. Conkling, and that 

"such libellous assaults have been resented and punished both in Eng- 
land and in the United States as breaches of privilege; and such 
assaults upon the official character of members have been punishable 
as indignities comniitted against the House itself." 

And it is added: 

' ' Your Committee have refrained from making any recommenda- 
tion as to the proceedings by the House against General Fry for his 
breach of privilege. The reasons for this are, in part, to be found in 
the circumstances connected with the introduction of General Fry's 
letter int o the House by one of its members, ' ' 

The Committee refrain from stating the nature or 
degree of the punishment which ought to be inflicted 
in this instance, but measuring the enormity of the 
offense by its vehement denunciation by the Commit- 
tee, it would surely be an instructive lesson had they 
done so. 

It may be that the Committee rested on the Eng- 
lish precedents to which the Chairman so eloquently 
I'eferred, when parliamentary privileges bore undis- 
puted sway ; for we are told by the Committee that 
" such assaults," that is such assaults as my letter, 
" have been punished in England as breaches of priv- 
ilege," and the history of England and the law reports 
tell us how they were punished. 

The statement of the Committee that '' such as- 
saults have been resented and punished in the United 
States as breaches of privilege " is not sustained by 
history. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



147 



POWERS DELEGATED TO THE HOUSE. 

The powers expressly granted to tlie House of 
Representatives are : 

1st. To judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of its- 
members. 

2d. To compel the attendance of absent members in such manner 
and under such penalties as it may prescribe. 

3d. To determine the rules of its proceedings. 

4th. To punish its members for disorderly behavior. 

5th. With the concurrence of two-thirds, to expel a member. 

6th. The House shall have the sole power of impeachment. 

PRIVILEGES OF 3IEMBERS OF THE HOUSE. 

1st. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach 
of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their at- 
tendance at the session of the House, and in going to and 
returning from the same. 

2d. For any speech or debate in the House they shall not be 
questioned in any other place. 

The enumerated powers delegated to the House 
of Representatives all refer expressly to its control 
over its own members, except in the case of impeach- 
ment. There is no other grant of judicial power. 

The authority " to determine the rules of its pro- 
ceedings " relates to " proceedings " legally instituted. 
The House cannot extend its power beyond its con- 
stitutional limits by any rule, or rules, which it may 
" determine." 

The distinction between the powers granted to 
the House and the privileges conferred upon its mem- 
bers is clearly defined. 

The House of Representatives certainly acquires 
no additional judicial power from the fact that its in- 
dividual members are exempt from civil process, or 
from liability to respond in damages for slander uttered 
on the floor of the House. Section 8, Art. I., of the 



148 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



Constitution, enumerates the powers delegated to Con- 
gress, and then authorizes Congress, not the House 
separately, " to make all laws which shall be necessary 
and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing 
powers, and all other powers, vested by this Constitu- 
tion in the government of the United States, or i7i any 
department or officer thereof T 

INCIDENTAL POWERS. 

The express powers delegated to the House, acd 
which I have enumerated, are accompanied with an 
implied grant of whatever is essential to make them 
effectual, not to enlarge their scope or to change their 
nature or character. 

The incidental powers relate to the thing granted, 
so that the specific object may be accomplished. 

The power of the House to punish is restricted 
by express grant to the lyunishment of its members; 
the power to punish a private citizen is not incidental 
to the power to punish a member of the House. 

In the convention a proposition was made and 
referred to the select committee appointed to draft 
the Constitution giving authority to punish for con- 
tempt. The committee made no report on the sub- 
ject. [Journal of Convention, Aug., pp. 263, 264.] 

CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS. 

When the Constitution was framed, and for many 
years previous, it was the custom of the House of 
Commons in England to punish private persons ad- 
judged to be in contempt of its authority, witli igno- 
minious penalties, such as fine, imprisonment, branding 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 149 

on the cheek, whipping at the cart's tail, or whatever 
the caprice or passion of the moment dictated. 

Is it to be presumed that the framers of the Con- 
stitution intended to invest like power in the House 
of Representatives ? and, if so, why confer the power 
to inflict punishment upon its members and limit it to 
expulsion from the House, when it was customary for 
the House of Commons, before and afterwards, not 
only to expel, but to inflict bodily punishment upon 
its members adjudged in contempt ? 

Was it intended that the unrestricted power of 
punishing private citizens at discretion, for real or 
supposed contempt of its authority, should be silently 
vested in the House, when it required an express 
grant to authorize the punishment of its members for 
disorderly conduct ? 

On the other hand, the framers of the Constitu- 
tion took abundant pains to guard the liberty of the 
citizen, and protect him in the free enjoyment of life 
and property. 

It cannot be presumed that they intended that, 
without passing a law, a man may be punished for 
doing what he had no means of knowing was an 
offense; or that, without indictment, information, or 
aflidavit, charging an offense, he could be arrested, 
tried, convicted, and sentenced without the interven- 
tion of a jury, or any of the safeguards which protect 
personal rights in civilized communities. 

It is a monstrous doctrine that a man may be ex- 
posed to a punishment of w^hich he never could have 
heard until his sentence was pronounced. 

In a country where the legislature was supreme, 



150 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

where the law-maker could alter or abolish the consti- 
tution, or change the form of government at will ; 
where the parliament was omnipotent, and where the 
exclusive power of either of its branches to punish 
breaches of privilege by infamous punishment was 
not denied, the right to exercise the power I'ested upon 
premises wholly inconsistent with the theory of our 
government. 

There is no provision of the Constitution that 
expressly or incidentally empowers the House to pun- 
ish persons other than its own members. There is no 
act of Congress that authorizes it. 

The power, therefore, must be looked for out- 
side of the Constitution and acts of Congress, which 
are declared to be the "supreme law of the land." 

The House alone has no authority to make a law. 
It may establish rules for its own government, but 
it has made no rule prescribing a penalty for contempt 
or breach of privilege. 

The House having no powder to make a law, and 
there being no law of Congress prescribing a penalty 
for contempt of that body, from what source is the 
power deriv^ed under which the House creates the 
offense, and determines the penalty at will ? 

As the offense is not defined, and no penalty is 
fixed beforehand, the House assumes to create an 
offense and prescribe the penalty for its violation. 

Such an act is ex 2^ost fcicto, for it has no existence 
until after the offense is committed. 

It is void as law, for the reason that neither 
House can make a law in its individual capacity. 

No law being in existence when the act com- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 151 

plained of was committed, the act cauuot be in viola- 
tion of law. 

There being no law defining " breach of privi- 
lege," it follows that a citizen punished for contempt 
would obviously be '' punished without due process of 
law." 

Congress having enacted no law declaring what 
is or is not a contempt of the authority of the House, 
or a breach of its privileges, the citizen cannot know 
what is or is not a contempt of that body. 

In the Kilbourn case the plaintiff denied the 
right of the House to inquire into his private busi- 
ness, or to ins^Ject his private papers, and was impris- 
oned in the common jail by order of the House. 

If I refuse to take off my hat to a member of the 
House on the public street, is it a contempt for which 
I may be imprisoned ? Happily, the Supreme Court 
in a recent case said that " every man should be able to 
know with certainty when he is committing a crime." 
[United States vs. Reese et. al., 2 Otto, 220.] 

The right of the citizen to be protected from 
usurpation of power was not overlooked by the fram- 
ers of the Constitution. I have already adverted to 
the fact that the fathers were familiar with the abuses 
and despotic invasion of private rights by the House 
of Commons, contemporaneous with, and prior to, the 
adoption of the Constitution. 

They had not forgotten the infamous punishments, 
the imprisonments, the mutilations and maimiugs of 
loyal and honest Englishmen by the House of Com- 
mons for alleged contempts and breaches of privilege. 

They remembered that that House had declared 



152 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



'' that whatsoever is enacted and declai'ed for law by 
the Commons in Parliament assembled hath the force 
of law, and all the people of this nation are concluded 
thereby, although the consent and concurrence of the 
King or House of Peers be not had thereunto." [Bl. 
Com. 160.] 

They constructed a government of delegated pow- 
ers, by which the powers not delegated to the United 
States by the Constitution are reserved to the States 
respectively, or to the people. 

Instead of recognizing the right of a legislative 
body to punish a citizen, they provided such abundant 
safeguards that " he who walks in honesty, walks 
without fear." 

So Jealous of the rights and liberties of the citizen 
were they that the right of inflicting punishment by 
the House was restricted to the punishment of its own 
members for disorderly conduct, and that not to ex- 
tend beyond expulsion ; and only then by a vote of 
two-thirds of the whole House. 

The power to punhh does not belong inherently 
to any legislative body or tribunal. The i-ight of 
self-defense and self-pi-eservatiou is a natural right, 
and is inherent in legislative bodies as well as in 
individuals. 

Tlie 'poiver to punish is a delegated power. It is 
surrendered to the government by the whole people, 
each individual consenting to be deprived of a part of 
his natural rights whenever he has committed a 
wrongful act against the people, his fellow members 
to this compact. 

" Political, therefore, or civil liberty, which is that 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 153 

of members of society, is no other than natural liberty 
so far restrained by human laws [and no farther] as 
is necessary and expedient for the general advantage 
of the public." [Bl. Com. 125.] 

The power to punish must be derived from the 
whole body of the people in which alone it originally 
resided, and from which it can only be acquired by 
organic, positive law. 

The right of self-defense or self-preservation is 
not to be denied. The House may preserve order and 
decorum, arrest, remove, or restrain intruders, or dis- 
turbers of its deliberations. It may protect its rights 
as an individual protects his. It may resist force by 
force in self-defense, but when the disturbance is 
ended and oi'der restored, that is the end of the matter 
unless some law has heen violated, in which event the 
courts will intervene and justice will be done. 

I have already stated that the House has not 
adopted a rule prescribing the penalty for contempt 
of its authority or breaches of its privilege ; so that, 
conceding the power to punish, the House has failed 
to define or declare what constitutes the offense, or the 
nature or the extent of the penalty. 

In a free government like this, Avhere the rights 
and liberties of the people are protected by law, 
it is difficult to understand how it can happen that 
the most sacred rights may be disregarded by the 
servants of the people, upon the pretext that some- 
thing which they call privilege has been assailed, 
when no man can possibly know what that privilege 
is. So far as it has been revealed, it is a shadowy and 
undefined spirit of pride known to Congressmen only. 



154 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



Yet in tlie face of all this, the Chairman of the 
Committee, in closing the debate on the adoption of his 
report in behalf of his '' friend," Mr. Conkling, with 
zeal and earnestness, speaking of my letter said : 

' ' I repeat what has been said in the report, that a more careful 
and more malicious and wanton violation of the privilege of the House 
and of its members has not been brought to the notice of any member 
of the Committee." Cong. Globe, July 19, 1866, page 5945. [Ap- 
pendix D.] 

Such was the utterance of the Chairman of the 
Committee appointed to examine judicially the matter 
at issue, and acting under an oath of office as Con- 
gressman which required him to do exact justice to 
the parties in interest. 

These are the closing words of the Chief Justice 
of the tribunal that tried the cause : 

' ' I am unwilling to consume the time of the House, but I am un- 
willing to sit down without saying the House should do this justice to 
my friend from New York [Mr. Conkling'],'^ 

that is to say, adopt the Committee's report eulogizing 
Mr. Conkling for the faithful manner in which he had 
performed the duties of Special Judge Advocate for 
the Western Division of New York ; which duties, as 
we have seen, consisted in prosecuting a solitaiy case 
at Elmira, and for which the government paid him 
$3000. 

The chairman's way of putting it is, that his 
"friend, Mr. Conkling, was not only innocent, but 
eminently patriotic, and valuable step by step to his 
government at a time of imminent peril." [Cong. Globe 
ib.] 

Who, or what it was that was in peril he does 
not disclose, nor does it appear how the peril was 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 155 

averted by tlie trial of Major Haddock by Court- 
martial, for Mr. Conkling's military services were 
rendered after the war was over and the Confederacy 
had ceased to exist. 



CONCLUSION. 

I look for no reparation, but possibly this review 
of the wrong done me may hereafter save the House 
from voting censure in ignorance of the testimony, 
and with no more knowledge of the subject than may 
be derived from the report of an investigating com- 
mittee, presented and advocated by the "friend" and 
cono^ressional associate of one of the contestants. 
Indeed, though the House might be pleased to take 
action on its own account, I am not certain that any 
damage has been done to me. My professional career 
has been one of unbroken progress. The government 
has treated me with unwavering consideration and 
liberality ; and I am in the enjoyment of ample 
rewards for my services and merits. 

General Jackson, while President of the United 
States, addressed a communication to the Senate repel- 
ling the condemnation of him by that exalted body for 
official action of his affecting the United States Bank ; 
and the Senate voted his communication to be a breach 
of privilege. 

I, while chief of a military bui'eau, addressed a 
communication, not to the House, but to a member of 
it, not touching any action of the House, but support- 
ing a member in repelling public condemnation of my 
official action, by another member; and the House 
voted my communication to be a breach of privilege. 
Both cases are without j^recedent. The Senate long 
ago expunged its censure from the records. 

156 



APPENDIX A. 

House of Represeinttatives, Tuesday, April 24, 
1866. The House met at twelve o'clock, M. Prayer 
by Rev. Henry W. Bellows. The Journal of yesterday 
was read and approved. The House resumed the 
consideration of the bill (H. R , No. 361) entitled 
"An act to reorganize and establish the Army of the 
United States." The twentieth section was then read 
as follows : 

Sec. 20. And be it further enaetcd, That the Provost Marshal's 
Bureau hereafter consist of a provost marshal general, with the rank, 
pay, and emoluments of a brigadier general ; and one assistant provost 
marshal general, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of a colonel of 
cavalry ; and all matters relating to the recruitment of the Army and 
the arrest of deserters shall be placed under the direction and control of 
this bureau, under such regulations as the Seci'etary of War may pre- 
scribe. 

Mr. ConMing. I move to strike out section 
twenty of the bill. My objection to this section is 
that it creates an unnecessary office for an undeserving 
public servant; it fastens as an incubus upon the 
country a hateful instrument of war, which deserves 
no place in a fi'ee government in time of peace. I 
have never heard any very serious attempt to justify 
by argument the permanent continuance of an officer 
whose administration durino- the war has had in it so 
little to commend and so much to condemn. But I 
have heard an effort made to prove the propriety of 
this section by charging it to the Lieutenant General 
of the Army, and by saying that he had found a neces- 
sity for continuing in time of peace the Bureau of the 
Provost Marshal General. In order that the House 

157 



158 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

may see how true this allegation is, I send to the 

Clerk's desk and ask to have read copies of letters 

which have been furnished to me, the first a letter 

addressed to the Lieutenant General by a Senator of 

the United States. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

United States Senate Chamber, 
Washington, March 17, 1866. 
General : 

The House biU for the organization of the Army contains a 
provision creating a permanent Provost Marshal's Bureau, with a brig- 
adier general at its head; also placing the recruiting service in its 
charge. 

It has been unofficially reported to me that this was done in conse- 
quence of a recommendation of yours to that effect. 

I should be pleased to know if such is the case, as I had labored 
under the impression, from conversation with officers of the Army, that 
such a step was not a judicious one, and tended only to increase the 
number of bureaus and officers of the Army with an increase of expendi- 
ture without any corresponding efficiency or benefit. 

If my impressions are erroneous I wovild like to have them cox*- 

rected. 

I am very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. W. Nesmith. 
Lieutenant General U. S. Grant, etc. 

Mr. ConMliig. I now send the answer of the 

Lieutenant General. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Washington, D.C., March 19, 1866. 
Dear Sir : 

Yours of the 17th instant, stating that it had been intimated 
that I had recommended the continuance of the Provost Marshal Gen- 
eral's department and the transfer of the recruiting service to it, is 
received. 

Some months since a paper was referred to me showing the great 
number of desertions from the Army, and asking for suggestions to put 
a stop to them. To that paper I suggested a number of changes in 
orders governing the recruiting service, and I recommended that the 
whole matter be put in charge of the Provost Marshal General, who 
could devote more attention to it than the Adjutant General, with all 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 159 

his other duties, could. I am opposed, however, to multiplying bu- 
reaus, and I think there is no necessity for a Provost Marshal General. 
In fact, if we had to organize the Army anew, I would not have as 
many bureaus as we now have. In my opinion, the country would be 
just as well and much more economically served if the coast survey- 
ing duties were added to the Engineer Bureau, and the quartermaster, 
subsistence, and pay departments were merged into one. I would not 
recommend a change now, however, but would not make any increase 

of bureaus. 

Very truly yours, 

U. S. Grant, 
Lieutenant General. 
Hon. J. W. Nesmith, United States Senator. 

A true copy. 

George K. Leet, Assistant Adjutant General. 

Mr. Conhling. The reasons which no doubt the 
wi'iter of that letter has for deeming the Provost Mar- 
shal and his bureau an unnecessary appendage to the 
peace establishment of the countiy appear at consid- 
erable length in a comnuinication which I have here, 
but which I will not, unless it becomes necessary, have 
read. It is a communication from the acting head of 
the Adjutant General's Office. We all know that 
during our histoiy thus far we have always managed 
without a bureau of this kind to recruit the regular 
Army, and that no need of it has ever been felt in 
maintaining the usual military establishment. The 
Provost Marshal's Bureau was a temporary expedient 
resorted to in an extreme emergency to bring volun- 
teers hastily to the field. Its mission is ended, and it 
should be buried out of sight. The communication in 
my hand shows that if re-established now for the pur- 
pose of superintending recruiting for the regular Army 
— and it can be applied to no other purpose — the 
expense of the recruiting service will be largely in- 
creased, that no greater efficiency will be attained, that 



160 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

a necessity will be created for duplicating records, for 
a new supply of apartments, of clerks, of agents ; in 
short, of the various arrangements connected with, 
recruiting, and that absolutely no good result can be 
accomplished by it. 

I state it thus strongly and briefly, and I will 
cause the details to be read if the reading shall be 
called for hereafter. 

There is one thing — I know" of but one — for this 
bureau to do before leaving the public presence, and 
that is to close its accounts, so as to allow the War 
Department and the country to know precisely what 
has become of the twenty-five million and odd dollars 
which, under the act of March 18, 1862, went to its 
credit. Sixteen million and some odd dollai's have 
been expended, and nine million and odd dollars re- 
main as a balance to the credit of the fund ; and when- 
ever the bureau will close its accounts, or will enable 
them to be closed, as they never will be until the 
bureau is wound up, it will perform its sole remaining 
function. 

If the administration had been ever so able, the 
time has come when the whole system of provost mar- 
shals should be numbered with the grievous memories 
of a bloody and terrible epoch. 

But there are yet other grounds of objection. I 
protest against any promotion or reward for the officer 
whose interests are involved in this section. He holds 
already the rank of lieutenant colonel in the staff 
department. Indeed, by accident, if the pending bill 
shall pass, he will be elevated to a yet higher grade ; 
but as he stands now, his pay amounts to $3,500, or 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



161 



thereabouts. I think that, for the present, is enough 
for him. He has suffered nothing and lost nothing in 
war that I ever heard of, and I protest, in the name 
of my people and in the name of the people of the 
western division of New York, against perpetuating a 
power under which they have suffered, beyond the 
capacity of any man adequately to state in the time 
allotted to me. 

"Central and western New York have a right to 
feel and do feel deeply on this subject. My constit- 
uents remember, and other constituencies remember, 
wrongs done them too great for forgetfulness and almost 
for belief by the creatures of this bureau and by its 
head. 

We in the western division of New York had 
sent to rule over us as assistant provost marshal gen- 
eral an officer of the Veteran Reserve corps ; a man 
who never saw a battle, who never received a scratch 
or suffered a day's sickness in the military service ; a 
man honored with the especial personal intimacy and 
confidence of the Provost Marshal General, and who 
in a marked and ostentatious degree reflected the will 
and the favor of his chief. He had been for gome 
time in the office of the Provost Marshal General here 
in Washington, he was his crony and confidant, and 
sustained with him, as events proved, relations of 
great personal intimacy. This spokesman, so trusted 
and so fortunate, did not come to us alone. There 
came at the same time other creatures of the head of the 
bureau at Washington. The western division swarmed 
with these chosen favorites, and they illustrated to the 
full the genius and the morale of their mission. 



162 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



By acts of their own, and by acts done by their 
superior at Washington, they turned the business of 
recruiting and di'afting into one carnival of corrupt 
disorder, into a paradise of coxcombs and thieves. 

False quotas vi^ere put upon us ; exaggerated tele- 
grams and orders were sent to our boards of super- 
visors. We were victimized by constant uncertainty 
and deception. In my own district, under one call, 
$438,000 was wrongfully wrung from an outraged and 
groaning people. Officers of this bureau who sought 
to stem the tide of fraud were removed without warn- 
ing, and the whole machinery of the Government was 
subject to miscreants and robbei's. Communities peti- 
tioned and remonstrated in vain. The most palpable 
wrongs were refused redress. Men immeasurably the 
superiors of Greneral Fry represented and protested, 
but they were spurned with magnificent disdain. 
Never was "the insolence of office" more offensively 
portrayed than it was by this man whom it is pro- 
posed to decorate and enrich. 

If there was no design at headquarters to do 
wrong, there was a capacity to muddle, to befog, to 
misunderstand facts, and to misread and misstate fig- 
ures and simple results, which is nearly inconceivable. 

I was employed by the Government to prosecute 
some of the frauds to which I have referred ; and I 
tried this assistant provost marshal general, who had 
been justified in all the outrages he committed, and in all 
the acts by which millions were stolen from the peo- 
ple of New York; who was justified by his superior 
officer down to the time when the sentence was pub- 
lished, and afterward, I understand. He was accused 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRy CONTROVERSY. 



163 



and convicted of the basest forms of official atrocity ; 
the most monstrous acts of bribery, oppression and 
wrong were charged against him and proved against 
him. And although he disgorged some two hundred 
thousand dollars, I see it stated in a newspaper that 
the other day he purchased in the city of Philadelphia 
an establishment for which he paid down $71,000. 
He was utterly poor when he entered this bureau ; and 
yet, after all he yielded up, and after paying a fine of 
$10,000, it seems that still he is rich. 

And this was not an isolated case ; far from it. 
On the contrary, I say, and I may endeavor on a 
future occasion to show in detail, that there never has 
been in human history a greater mockery and a 
greater burlescpie upon honest administration than 
the conduct of this bureau, taking the whole country 
together. It will turn out that of the seven or eight 
hundred thousand men for whom, not to whom, 
because they did not get them, enormous bounties were 
paid, not to exceed three hundred thousand, and I be- 
lieve not two hundred thousand, ever i-eached the front. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. Blaine obtained the floor. 

Mr. Ward. I hope unanimous consent will be 
given my colleague [Mr. Conldm(j\ to proceed. 

Mr. Ross. I object. 

Mr. Blaine. I am in a very weakly condition of 
health to make the brief explanation due to the Mili- 
tary Committee. But I wish to state why the com- 
mittee reported this section of the bill in regard to 
which the gentleman from New York shows so much 
feeling. 



164 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

I believe that among the earliest acts of the gen- 
tleman from New York at this session of Congress 
was the introduction of a resolution, which was 
adopted by this House, directing the War Department 
to report upon the expediency of abolishing the office 
of Provost Marshal General. In the routine of busi- 
ness the answer of the Secretary of War came to the 
Military Committee, and among the papers was a let- 
ter from Lieutenant General Grant. 

There was an elaborate paper also from General 
Townsend. They were referred to a sub-committee. 
The committee, upon a full review of the papers, and 
especially of the letter of Lieutenant General Grant, 
reported this section. The gentleman from New York 
has read a letter from the Lieutenant General, which 
practically recalls the recommendations of the letter 
on which the committee acted ; but I desire the Clerk 
to read the letter of Lieutenant General Grant, which 
was the authorization, in the judgment of the commit- 
tee, for inserting the section. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES, 

" Washington, December 14, 1865. 

" Sir: — In reply to your letter of the 13th instant, in reference to 
desertions, I would make the following remarks: I do not think the 
present method of recruiting, as carried out, sufficient to fill up the 
regular Army to the force required, or keep it full when once filled. 

' • The duty is an important oiie. and demands, I think, the exclu- 
sive attention of an officer of the War Department, aided by a well- 
organized system extending over the country. I think the officer best 
fitted for that position, by his experience during the present war, is 
General Fry, and would recommend that the whole subject of recruit- 
ing be put in his hands, and all officers on recruiting duty be directed 
to report to him. He should also have charge of the apprehension of 
deserters, should be authorized to offer such rewards as will secure 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



165 



their apprehension. When caught they should be tried, and the sen- 
tence rigidly carried into effect; this would soon stop the presfnt 
enormous amount of desertion. 

' ' I would recommend that the duties heretofore performed by pro- 
vost marshals be hei-eafter performed by officers detailed for recruiting 
duty. Very res^Dectfully, 

"U. S. Grant, 
' '■Lieutenant General. 
" Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War." 

Mr. Blaine. The House will observe that the 
Committee on Military Affairs acted precisely in ac- 
cordance with the recommendations of the Lieutenant 
General as contained in the letter which has just been 
I'ead. The first point which the Lieutenant General 
makes is that the system of recruiting carried on 
under the direction of the Adjutant General's Office has 
not proved efficient, in his judgment, in filling the 
A imy. In the next place, he suggests that some special 
officer should be detailed to superintend the business 
of recruiting, and he names General Fry as the proper 
officer. In the next place, he states that provost mar- 
shals throughout the country are not needed, and that 
their places should be filled by recruiting officers. 
Provisions in accordance with all these recommen- 
dations are comprehended in the section which the 
gentleman from New York would have stricken out. 

Mr. BoutweU. I desire to state that the facts up 
to the latest date do not sustain the opinion of the 
Lieutenant General. From vlast October till April 
17, the Adjutant General has recruited between nine- 
teen and twenty thousand men for the regular Army. 

Mr. Blaine. We acted only on the information 
before us. And when the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Cotikling] quotes the letter of the Lieutenant 



166 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



General in condemnation of the report made by the 
Committee on Military Affairs, I merely wish the 
privilege of showing that that report was made in ex- 
press conformity, verhatim et literatim^ with the recom- 
mendations of that officer's letter, which came officially 
before the committee, and which was not smuggled in 
in the manner in which the letter read by the gentle- 
man from New York comes before us. That is not an 
official letter ; it is an unofficial note. The letter just 
read by the Clerk is an official note, communicated to 
this House by the Secretary of War on a regular call, 
and referred by the House to the Committee on Mili- 
tary Affairs. 

Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose that the House of 
Representatives care anything more than the Commit- 
tee on Military Affairs about the great recruiting 
frauds in New York, or the quarrels of the gentleman 
from New York with General Fry, in which quarrels 
it is generally understood the gentleman came out 
second best at the War Department. I do not think 
that such questions ought to be obtruded here. 

Though the gentleman from New York has had 
some difference with General Fry, yet I take pleasure 
in saying that, as I believe, there is not in the Ameri- 
can Army a more honorable and high-toned officer 
than General Fry. That officer, I doubt not, is ready 
to meet the gentleman from New York or anybody 
else in the proper forum. I must say that I do not 
think it is any very creditable proceeding for the gen- 
tleman from New York here in this place to traduce 
General Fry as a military officer when he has no op- 
portunity to be heard. I do not consider such a pro- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 1 67 

ceeding the highest specimen of cliivaliy that could 
be exhibited. 

The gentleman from New York has had his issues 
witli General Fry at the War Department. They 
have been adjudicated upon by the Secretary of Wai-, 
and I leave it foi* the gentleman to say whether he 
came out first best. I do not know the particulars ; 
the gentleman can inform the House. All I have to 
say is — and in this 1 believe I speak the sentiment of 
a majority of the members of this House — that 
James B. Fry is a most efficient officer, a high-toned 
gentleman, whose character is without spot or blemish; 
a gentleman who stands second to no officer in the 
American Army ; and he is ready to meet the gentle- 
man from New York and all other accusers anyw^hei'e 
and everywhere. And, sir, when I hear the gentleman 
from New York rehearse in this House, as an impeach- 
ment of General Fry, all the details of the recruiting 
frauds in New York, which General Fry used his best 
energies to repress with iron hand, a sense of indigna- 
tion carries me beyond my personal strength and im- 
pels me to denounce such a course of proceeding. 

Mr. Mercur obtained the floor. 

Mr. Conhling. I ask the gentleman from Pennsyl- 
vania [Mr. Mercur'] to yield to me. 

Mr. Mercur. I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. ConMing. Mr. Speaker, if General Fry is re- 
duced to depending for vindication upon the gentle- 
man from Maine he is to be commiserated certainly. 
If I have fallen to the necessity of taking lessons from 
that gentleman in the rules of propriety, or of right or 
wrong, God help me. 



168 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



I say to him further that I mean to take no ad- 
vantage such as he attributes of the privileges of this 
place or of the absence of General Fry. On the con- 
trary, I am ready to avow what I have here declared 
anywhere. I have stated facts for which I am willing 
to be held res2:>onsible at all times and places. 

I say, further, that the statement made by the 
gentleman from Maine with regai'd to myself person- 
ally and my quarrels with General Fry, and their re- 
sults, is false. He says I can — 

Mr. Blaine. What does the gentleman mean to 
say was false ? 

Mr. Conklhuj. I mean to say that the statement 
made by the gentleman from Maine is false. 

Mr. Blaine. What statement ? 

Mr. ConMmg. Does not the gentleman understand 
what I mean ? 

Mr. Blaine. I call the gentleman to order. I de- 
mand he shall state what was false in what I stated. 
I have the parliamentary right. I demand the gentle- 
man shall state what is false in what I said. 

The Speaker 'pro tempore. The gentleman from 
Maine will state his point of order. 

Mr. Blaine. I have already. The gentleman has 
denounced my statement as false. It is my I'ight to 
have him state in what particular anything I said or 
what allegation I made was false. 

The Sp)eaher pro tempore. The Chair overrules 
the point of order. The gentleman from New Yoi'k 
will proceed. 

Mr. Blaine. One single word more. 

Mr. Conkling. I do not yield. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 169 

Mr. Blaine. Do I understand the Speaker to 
rule, when a member states that another has stated 
falsely, that is no point of order ? 

The Speaker pro tempore. The Chair does not 
understand that to have been the point of order. 

Mr. Blaine. Then I raise the point of order that 
the gentleman stated what was unparliamentary when 
he said that I stated what was false. I have no ob- 
jection to his going on to state where it is false. 

The Speaker pro tempore. The Chair understood 
the gentleman to say it was out of order to pronounce 
a statement was false without statins: wherein it is 
false. The Chair overruled that point of order. If 
the gentleman has another point of order to raise he 
will please state it. 

Mr. Blaine. I raise the point of order that it was 
not parliamentary for the gentleman to use those words. 

The Speaker pro tempore. The Chair sustains that 
point of order. 

Mr. Blame. I have no objection to his stating 
wherein it is false. 

The Speaker pro tempore. The Chaii- is of the oj^in- 
ion it is not parliamentary to pronounce what has been 
said by any gentleman in debate here is false. It is 
not a point of oi'der well taken to require him to state 
whei'ein it is false. 

Mr. Corilding. Under the rules the words ob- 
jected to sliould have been taken down at the time, 
and the point of order comes now too late. One who 
makes such points of order sliould be more careful 
how he makes them. 

It is not my disposition, Mr. Speaker, to engage 



1^0 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

in personal controversy uj^on this floor ; but when any 
member forgets himself so far as to impute unworthy 
motives and resentments to me, when my motives and 
resentments are wholly foreign to the matter before 
the House, he must expect a rebuff; and when he as- 
serts offensively that I have had personal quarrels 
with a person whose administration and public acts 
are under consideration, and that I have been worsted 
in these quarrels, and that, too, before the Secretary 
of War and by the Secretary of War, and when that 
statement has no foundation in fact, I think the Chair 
and the House will agree with me that something is 
to be pardoned to the earnestness of the occasion. 1 
said what I felt bound to say, speaking not only for 
my own constituents, but for other constituencies in 
New York whose Representatives hear me. I could 
not remain silent when I know that in my own dis- 
trict and elsewhere men who stood up honestly and 
attempted to resist " bounty Jumpers " and thieves 
were stricken down and trodden under foot by Gen- 
eral Fry. I affirm that the only way to acquit him of 
venality is to convict hira of the most incredible in- 
competency. I am responsible for that, sir, everywhere. 
I have had no such personal quai-rel with General 
Fry, however, as has been asserted. I never chanced 
to see him but once, unless I have forgotten it, and 
when the gentleman rises here and makes a charge of 
that kind, with the insinuation by which he accom- 
panies it, his conduct calls for some plainness of 
speech. And so, using parliamentary language, I reit- 
erate, that the statement which was made is errone- 
ous and destitute of that which it should possess in 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 171 

order to render it admissible in debate. I believe that 
is parliainentaiy, even if the other form was not. 

Now, si]-, I want to say a word about this letter. 

Ml'. Mevcur. Mr. Speaker 

Mr. ConMing. I beg pardon. I thought the 
gentleman yielded the floor to me altogether. I am 
very much obliged to him, and will relinquish the 
floor at once if he wishes to occupy it. I thought he 
intended to yield to me without qualification, so as to 
have another fifteen minutes afterward. But I will 
instantly resign it, and thank him for his courtesy. I 
ask the gentleman whether I shall go on or not. 

Mr. Blaine. I wish to make a single statement. 

Mr. Conhling. I do not understand that any one but 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania can claim the floor. 

Mr. Blaine. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Mercu)'^^ had the floor. 

Mr. ConMing. I decline to yield it to the gentle- 
man from Maine [Mr. Blaine \. 

The Speaker pro tempore. Does the Chair under- 
stand the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Merc'ar'\ 
to yield the floor entirely to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. GonUing'l ? 

Mr. Mercur. I did not so understand it. 

The Spealcer pro tempore. Then the gentleman 
from New York has the riglit to resume the floor only 
by the consent of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. ConMing. I ask the gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania [Mr. Mercur'\ whether he wishes now to re- 
sume the floor. 

Mr. Mercur. I designed to resume it after the 
gentleman, but I will allow him to go on. 



172 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



Mr. ConhUng. The letter which has been read, at 
the instance of the gentleman from Maine, from the 
Lieutenant Genei'al, has no reference whatever to this 
section of the bill or to a provision like this. It is a 
letter written on the 14th of December, when the Pro- 
vost Marshal General's Bureau was, and was for the 
time to remain, in existence, and it refers chiefly to 
what had better be done with deserters, and the state- 
ment of the Lieutenant General amounts to this : that 
such an officer being in existence it is his appropriate 
business to take charge of deserters, and he recom- 
mends that he should do so, and attend to recruiting 
besides. That is all. There is no recommendation 
whatever favoring the retention of this bureau per- 
manently, or of having any such officer in the standing 
Army. It comes to the Secretary of War appended to 
an argument made by General Fry himself, an elab- 
orate aro:ument made to show that he is essential to 
the Government. And although it is appended for 
that purpose, I repeat that it has nothing to do with this 
subject, but relates wholly to what the Provost Mar- 
shal's Bureau had better be set to do for the time being. 

The letter which I have presented from the 
Lieutenant General was written to a member of the Mil- 
itary Committee of the Senate, written in answer to a 
question in refei-ence to this identical section proposed 
there, and in answer to the specific inquiry whether he 
was or was not in favor of continuing this bureau. 
And he says in so many words that in his judgment 
there is not the slightest occasion for it, that bureaus 
ought not to be multiplied, and that this one ought to 
be discontinued. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



173 



Therefore, Mr. Speaker, upon the authority not 
only of the Lieutenant General, but of all the generals 
who constituted the military council, because this 
section was omitted in the bill which they appr()ve<l, 
I have made this motion. 

Now, sir, as to the official conduct of this officer, 
1 have deemed it proper to refer to it because the 
practical and real question is whether he personally is 
to continue in his present place. I have stated but a 
very small part of what I know from my own investi- 
gation of the matter. And I want it distinctly under- 
stood that in my judgment no officer of this Govern- 
ment holding a similar position has done so much 
harm and so little good as the officer of whom I am 
speaking. If that is offensive to anybody, so be it. 
To the particular individual to whom it may give 
most offense, I will answer not here but elsewhere, 
when it becomes necessary. 

Mr. Sjxdding. I desire to ask my friend a single 
question. Will it not answer his pui'pose if the House 
vote down this Provost Marshal's Bureau and let the 
matter stop there ? 

Mr. Coiikling. I think so. 

Mr. SiMldimj. We will do that cheerfully. 

Mr. ConkUng. That is all 1 intended to do origi- 
nally. 

Mr. Speaker, how much time have I left? 

The Spealcer pro tempore. About four minutes. 

Mr. ConMing. Then I will yield it to the gentle- 
man from Ohio [Mr. Spalding\ 

Mr. Spalding. I wish to say a few words. 

The Speaker pro tempore. Does the gentleman 



174 



CONKLTNG AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



from New York [Mr. ConMincf\ yield the flooi- to tlie 
gentleman from Ohio for the residue of bis time? 

Mr. Spalding. I claim it on my own merits, sir. 

The S2)eaher pro tenvpore. The Chair now under- 
stands that the gentleman fi'om Oliio [Mi-. Spalding^ 
is to speak during the balance of the time of the gen- 
tleman from New York [Mi-. Gonlding\ ^ 

Mr. ConMing. I so understand. I yield the 
residue of my time only to the gentleman from Ohio, 
because I suppose that the gentleman from Pennsyl- 
vania [Mr. Mercur'\^ to w^hom I am very much in- 
debted, desires to occupy his full fifteen minutes. 

The Speaker pro tempore. Then the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Spaldifig^ is entitled to the tloor foi- 
Just thi'ee minutes. 

Mr. Spalding. Three minutes is enough for me. 
I am opposed, sii', to the continuance of this military 
bureau known as the Provost Marshal Genei'al's Office. 
I am opposed to it in time of peace, because I consider 
it an unnecessary ap[)endage to the Army. But I 
believe that during the late war it was a necessary 
evil, and I think that a great deal of the odium which 
has been attached to the administration of the duties 
of that office pertained rather to the nature of the 
office than to the individual who discharged the duties 
of the office. I question, sir, whether any man, 
whether he came from the East or the West, from the 
North or the South, could have gone into the admin- 
istration of the Provost Marshal General's department 
and discharged its duties with any more satisfaction 
to the general public than General James B Fry. 

Now, I do not claim that vast frauds have not 



CONKLING AND BLAINE FR^ CONTllOVEKSY. 175 

been perpetrated in this as in every other depart- 
ment of the Government during tlie hist four years ; 
I think they have been. But I do not think any one 
man is responsible for them. 

I think, perha[)s, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Conhling] has sufficient cause for what he has 
said ; but such a case as he has mentioned has not 
been brought home to me, in all my official intercourse 
with the Provost Marshal General du]-ing the last 
three years, and it has been constant and frequent. 
I have been treated by him with a degree of kindness 
and courtesy which requires from me an expression of 
thanks rather than of censure. I am happy, therefore, 
to have it in my power to say that I am under obliga- 
tions to this man; and it is a pleasure to me to acquit 
myself of the duty of doing so. 

Mr. Blaine. I do not rise to argue the mei-its of 
this proposition. I rise I'ather to relieve myself from 
the stigma attempted to be cast upon me, and to place 
myself on the record, as becomes a gentleman and a 
Representative. 

I stated \vhen T was up before, and I left it to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. ConMing'] to 
answer whether 1 stated it correctly, that I had 
understood there were personal difficulties between 
himself and the Provost Marshal General. I have so 
understood it. I have undei'stood it from very high 
authority. I have understood that in those difficulties 
the gentleman from Ne^v York, as I said before, did 
not come out first best. I did not make this as an 
assertion. I left it to him to say whether it was so 
or not. Certaitjly I did not violate any principle of 



176 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FKY CONTROVERSY. 



propriety or of pai'liamentai'y etiquette. And, sir, 
even were I in full health (and I ought to be in my bed 
to-day), I could not consent to go into this cheap sort 
of stuff about answering "here and elsewhere,"and about 
" personal responsibility " and all that kind of thing. 

Sir, I do not know how to characterize it. When 
we had gentlemen here from the eleven seceded 
States, they used to talk about answering "here and 
elsewhere " ; and it was understood that they meant 
a duel ! I suppose the gentleman from New York 
means nothing of that kind ; I do not know whether 
he does or not ; but that is the only meaning that can 
be attached to the phrase. When a man says that he 
is ready to answer " hei'e or elsewhere," he means that 
he is willing to receive a note outside of the District 
of Columbia. Well, now, that is very cheap, and cer- 
tainly beneath my notice. I do not believe the gen- 
tleman from New York wants to fight a duel; and I 
am sure he needs no assurance from rae that I do not 
intend it. When I have to resort to the use of the 
epithet of "false" upon this ilooi-, and this cheap 
swagger about being responsible "here or elsewhere," 
I shall have very little faith in the cause which I 
stand up to maintain. 

Mr. Mercur. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the objec- 
tions, which appear to me to be personal to the present 
Provost Marshal General, it strikes me there are many 
objections to the establishment of this bureau as a 
permanent one. The reasons for its existence during 
the war were manifest ; but it strikes me that the 
reasons which exist for its abolishment since the tei'- 
mination of the war are equally manifest. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY OONTROVKRSY. 177 

The Ijill, upon its face, provides for two classes 
of duties to be performed by this bureau. Tlie one is 
the recruiting of the Army, and the other is the ariest 
of deserters. It provides that two persons sliall take 
chai'ge of these duties, one with the rank of brigadier 
general, and the othei' with the rank of colonel of 
cavalry. 

Now, it appears to me that all these duties can 
be properly perfoi'ined by a person occupying a lower 
position, and receiving much less compensation than 
these persons would receive. The recruiting of the 
Army is not a business of such vast dimensions, nor 
will it be prolonged so long as to require the creation 
of a permanent l)ureau like this. 

After the Army is filled, and we ai'e informed 
that during the last six months I'ecruiting has gone on 
very i'a})idly, this will not be needed, and whatever 
number we may fix upon as the proper number foi' 
the Army, we have reason to know that the vacuum 
can be filled u[) in a few months without any great 
difficulty; and when the Army is once filled on a 
peace establishment the duties of a bui'eau of this 
kind, so far as recruiting is concerned, will necessarily 
be very small. 

Now, in regard to the other duties of this office, the 
arrest of deserters, I take it that there cannot now be a 
very large number of deserters that the Government 
proposes to pursue and arrest and punish. In these 
days of general amnesty and of general pardon, I pre- 
sume the Government will not pursue very sharply 
and rigidly those persons who have deserted from the 
armies of the Union. And if there is no great num- 



178 



CONXLING AND ULAINE-FKY CONTROVEUsy. 



ber of deserters now who are to be arrested, is it to be 
supposed or assumed tliat the number will increase to 
such an extent in the future as to create a necessity 
for a permanent bureau to look after and arrest de- 
serters ? I think not ; and hence I assume that neith- 
er for the one purpose nor the other specified in the 
bill is there any necessity for the creation of a per- 
manent bui'eau of this character. 

Now, in addition to the absence of any necessity 
for this bureau, it does strike me, if I understand the 
sentiment of the country aright, a sentiment which grew 
and strengthened with tlie progress of the recent re- 
bellion, that the present head of this bureau did not 
satisfy public expectation in the discharge of his duties. 
It is not ray design to attribute a want of good faith or 
a want of integrity to that bureau. In my judgment, 
though I may err, it was a want of capacity which 
created the great dissatisfaction which existed in 
the minds of the loyal people throughout tlie 
country. 

The fact cannot be disguised that n great many 
of the complications and entanglements which arose 
during the progress of the war were solely in conse- 
(pience of the orders which issued from time to time 
from the Provost Marshal Genei'al's Office. They com- 
plicated matters so much, one followed the other in 
such rapid succession, changing, modifying, and throw- 
ing confusion upon what had preceded, that no one 
could form any adequate idea of what was required. 
No district could tell how many men it had to raise, 
or how many men they had received credit for. Such 
being the fact, there is no reason, no justice, no pro- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY OONTROVRRSY. 179 

priety, in continuing this bureau for the benefit of the 
present incumbent. 

The gentleman from New York [Mi*. Conkliiig'] 
has suo;o;ested one thino- in which this bui'eau was 
somewhat conspicuous, that is, its power of absorption 
of the commutation money which was paid by people 
all over the country, and of which no satisfactory ac- 
count has yet been rendered. But there was another 
reputation which tliis bureau established, and that 
was its peculiar and unique way of combining figures. 
The countiy was frequently astonished by this rare 
and peculiar power of combining figures, not only 
during the progress of the war, but since we have met 
here this session. I refer to the efforts made to arrive 
at the probable cost to this Government in case we 
should adopt some system of equalizing the bounties 
to be given to our soldiers. We met here, every man 
of us zealous and wai'm in his desii-e to equalize the 
bounties. But the Provost Marshal General, with his 
peculiar combination of figures, has again thrown a 
damper upon us. 

It strikes me that the House ought with great 
unanimity to vote down this section and cause this 
bureau to be abolished. 

Mr. Stevens. I move to insert the following: in 
the place of the section which it is proposed to strike 
out : 

'• That the Provost Marshal' s Bureau shaU be continued only so 
long as in the judgment of the Secretary of War may be necessary to 
close up the business thex-eof , not exceeding, however, six months 
from the passage of this act." 

Mr. ConMliKj. I will accept the proposition of 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mi*. Stevens]. 



180 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

Mr. Scliench. My impression is that the sense 
of this House is against the section as it stands in the 
bill, and I certainly do not mean to struggle to keep 
it there. But it is equally certain that it is somewhat 
due to the Committee on Military Affairs that this 
House should clearly understand why it was that the 
Committee believed that in an army bill a feature of 
til is kind should compose one of its parts. 

I will not go into any question about the charac- 
ter of the present incumbent of the Provost Marshal 
Genei-al's Office. He is able to defend that for him- 
self. It is defended by the history of the war. It is 
defended by his sei vices through good report and 
evil report. Accoi'ding to the best of his ability, that 
officer has so discharged his duty that those in liis 
own immediate department, who know best how that 
duty has been discharged, have no such epithets to 
bestow upon him as that he is an undeserving officer. 

It is not for me, therefore, to inquire why gentle- 
men make personal issues with that officer here, in a de- 
bate upon a feature in a military bill which has no 
reference to persons, but merely to a plan, a scheme 
of operations. And I here desire to say to the House, 
in behalf of the Military Committee, that in all their 
labor of consideration, discussion, inquiry, and other 
work tending to the framing of a proper bill for the 
establishment of an army system, they have endeav- 
ored to act without reference to persons, having in 
view only the best schemes for the attainment of ob- 
jects which might result in the public good. 

There is nothing about General Fry in this sec- 
tion. The probability is, that if the section sliould 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 181 

prevail as a part of the bill, General Fry would be re- 
tained in his present position ; but it would not neces- 
sarily be so. The question truly before this House, as 
a legislative body, is whether or not the committee 
were right in supposing that a Provost Marshal Gen- 
eral's Office, as a feature of a military system, is needed. 
Now, upon that subject, gentlemen have not been 
quite fair in referring to the testimony upon which 
the opinion of the committee, in favor of such neces- 
sity, was based. The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Conkling\ in commenting upon the letter of the 
Lieutenant General, sent in response to a call made 
upon him by the Secretary of War, and officially com- 
municated to this House, and by this House referred 
to the Military Committee, has taken occasion to say 
that there is nothing in that letter about recruiting, 
that it relates to desertion. 

Mr. Colliding. The gentleman misunderstood me. 
I said that there was nothing in the communication 
about a continuation of the Provost Marshal General's 
Bureau ; that it referred simply to the business in which 
that bureau would be employed while it exists. 

Mr. Schenck. And that its employment was to 
be in the arrest of deserters. 

Mr. Conklinfj. No, sir; I did not say that. 

Mr. Schench. Then I misunderstood the gentle- 
man. 

I wish now to call the attention of the House to 
the letter of General Grant, which, in connection with 
other communications of opinion made to the commit- 
tee, induced the committee to adopt this as a feature 
of their bill. Certainly the committee were justified 



182 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

in supposing that the communication of General Grant 
was intended to recommend Just what they did. Gen- 
eral Grant, in his subsequent letter, communicated 
now informally and indirectly to this House, has ex- 
plained that perhaps he was misunderstood. But that 
does not alter the fact that here was the letter, and 
this was the character of the recommendation con- 
tained in that letter. 

The question was the subject of recruiting and 
desertion ; how the one should be promoted and the 
other prevented. Now, sir, it is a notorious fact that 
heretofore recruiting for filling up the ranks of the 
regular Army of the United States has been to a con- 
siderable degree a failure. Whose fault it is, I do not 
undertake now to say ; but the fact is incontestable 
that heretofore recruiting has been conducted by the 
detail of an officer who wanted an agreeable visit to a 
quiet country town or a pleasant residence for a time in 
some city. This commissioned officer, while boarding 
at a hotel, and occasionally visiting the rendezvous, left 
the business of recruiting to be performed by some 
sergeant, aided, it may be, by a private or two, also 
detailed as a portion of the party. Thus the work of 
recruiting was slow and quite inefficient in its general 
results. 

I remember very well having been compelled to 
turn my attention to the mode in which this business 
was conducted in a neighboring city, when myself in 
the military service ; and I remember that week after 
week and month after month the reports of the re- 
cruiting officers, both for the regular army and for vol- 
unteers, read about in this way : " For the month of 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



183 



April, total number of recruits four ; total number of 
deserters four. For the month of May, total number 
of recruits three ; total number of deserters three." 

Once in awhile there was at the end of the month 
a small margin of one or two recruits, who might or 
might not find their way from the recruiting station 
to a place in the ranks. 

Now, sir, this is as well understood by General 
Grant as anybody else, and in the very commencement 
of this letter he says : 

" I do not think the present method of recruiting, as carried out, 
suflScient to fill up the regular Army to the force required, or to keep it 
full when once filled." 

Here is the evil of which the Lieutenant General 
complains. The committee came to the same conclu- 
sion, not merely from his testimony, but from other 
facts and other reports laid before them ; and although 
now, at the close of the war, recruiting is going 
on very well indeed, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is very much mistaken in supposing that there are not 
desertions, and a great many desertions. There is for 
some reason an unusual proportion of deserters. 

But in this state of fact, what did Lieutenant 
General Grant say, when appealed to by the Secretary 
of War ? He said : " The duty is an important one, 
and demands, I think, the exclusive attention of an 
officer of the War Department." Not his casual at- 
tention in connection with some other department on 
the part of the same officer to whom it shall be given. 
No, sir, his exclusive attention to this matter is re- 
quired. He says it " demands, I think, the exclusive at- 
tention of an officer of the War Department, aided by 



184 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

a well-organized system." That is not different from 
what the Provost Marshal is now. There must be an 
officer who shall devote himself exclusively to this 
business, aided by a well-organized system extending 
over the country. He says : 

' ' I think the officer best fitted for that position by his experience 
during the present war is General Fry, and would recommend that 
the whole subject of recruiting be put in his hands, and all officers on 
recruiting duty be directed to report to him." 

He then goes a step further, and proposes to con- 
fer upon this officer everything relating to the appre- 
hension of deserters. 

I think, under these circumstances, his recom- 
mending the creation of a distinct system, at the head 
of which was to be put this officer, whose exclusive 
duty it should be to take care of recruiting and de- 
sertions, justified the committee in supposing that it 
was equivalent to a recommendation for a distinct 
feature in the administration of the War Department 
by which these objects should be accomplished and 
these measures carried out. 

I say this as I felt it was due to the committee, 
or a majority of the committee, in justification of their 
action in making this Provost Marshal's Bureau a part 
of the military system. 

The House may differ from us ; I think they do. 
But I am not at all solicitous about this. I am not 
disposed to regard it in the light of a pet measure, 
however any be sharpened in opposition to it. 

But, Mr. Speaker, I will add that the proposition 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] 
should be adopted, or something should be inserted in 
the bill to continue this bureau, in order to finish up the 



CONKLING AND BLAIXE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 185 

business of the war. If you strike out this section 
you ought to put in some provision for six months or 
some other time, such as will prevent the bureau clos- 
ing at a loss to the Government and a derauo;ement of 
the military system so far as the trust reposed hereto- 
fore in that office is concerned. 

I now demand the previous question. 

Mr. Farqiihar. I ask tlie gentleman to withdraw 
the call for the previous question. 

Mr, Sclienck. I will if the gentleman will renew it. 

Mr. Farquhar. I will. 

Mr. Speakei', having sei-ved under the orders of 
the Provost Marshal General in the discharge of tlie 
duties of a mustering and disbursing officer in the 
State of Indiana, and having had personal opportuni- 
ties to know the importance of that system, I feel I 
should not have discharged my duty to myself, to my 
State, nor to this House if I should remain silent until 
this vote was taken, without saying a word in regard, 
to the manner in which the duties of the Provost Mar- 
shal General have been discharged in respect to that 
State. I desire to say that in the administration of 
the officer in charge of that department, I never did 
hear any charge made against the efficiency, against 
the promptness, against the success of the officer in 
charge of that department, but, on the contrary, and I 
say it with pleasure, the duties of that office were per- 
formed with evidence of the highest ability and the 
greatest satisfaction. During the time I had an op- 
portunity of serving under that officer, a large amount 
of recruits were raised, both to fill up old regiments 
and to create new regiments, with a success which did 



186 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



not attend the service when another officer was in 
charge of that department. I take pleasure, without 
entering into the controversy, if I may so call it, re- 
garding that system in this House and in regard to 
the duties and services of that high officer, to say to-day 
that I bear testimony to the highest ability of that 
officer in the full discharge of these duties. 

I will take up but a moment more. What will 
be the effect of striking out the section of the bill 
which proposes to continue that office as it is now ? It 
will be nothing more than to turn the duties of that 
office back to the Adjutant General's dej)artment. 
We did nothing more in the creation of that bureau 
than to detail an officer from the War Department to 
perform its duty. By striking out that from the bill 
you will turn it back to the Adjutant General's de- 
partment. What will then be done ? The War De- 
partment will detail the same officer, bearing the same 
rank, receiving the same pay, with the same assistants 
for that purpose. I cannot, therefore, see much econ- 
omy in taking the bureau from the position it now 
occupies. 

I renew the demand for the previous question. 

Mr. ScJiencJc. I think the amendment jDi'oposed 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] 
limiting the time, if the section is to be stricken out, 
ought to be made a part of the bill. 

The previous question was seconded and the main 
question ordered ; and under the operation thereof the 
amendment was agreed to. 



APPENDIX B. 

House of Repkesentatives, Monday, April 30, 
1866. The House met at twelve o'clock, M. Prayer 
by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. Boynton. 

Provost Marshal General Fry. 

Mr. Blaine. Will the gentleman from Massachu- 
setts [Mr. Eliot] yield to me a moment ? 

Mr. Eliot. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Blaine. I hold in my hand a letter from Pro- 
vost Marshal General Fry, which I ask to have read at 
the Clerk's desk for the double purpose of vindicating 
myself from the charge of having stated in debate 
last week what was false, and also for the purpose, 
which I am sure will commend itself to the House, of 
allowing fair play to an. honorable man in the same 
forum in which he has been assailed. 

The Speaher. It requires unanimous consent to 
have it read. Is there objection ? 

Mr. Colliding. I infer that this has some refer- 
ence to me. I shall make no objection, provided I may 
have an opportunity to reply to whatever the letter 
may call for hereafter. 

Mr. Stevens. I hope this will be postponed until 
we get through this bill. I object to interrupting it 
in this way. 

Mr. Blaine. I move to suspend the rules to allow 
it to be read. 

The Speaher. The House is now engaged in the 
consideration of a bill brought up under a suspension 
of the rules ; it cannot, therefore, suspend the rules to 
consider another matter. 

187 



188 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

Peovost Marshal General Fry — again, 

Mr. Blaine. I ask to send to the Clerk's table to 
have read the letter the reading of which was objected 
to this morning. 

Mr. ConhUng. I do not object, but only ask, if 
the matter relates to me, to have an opportunity to 
reply. 

Mr. Blaine. I wish to repeat what I said before. 

Mr. Moss. I object to the gentleman from New 
York making a speech. 

Mr. ConhUng. The gentleman does not want a 
letter to be read relating to a member and then not 
permit that member to reply. 

Mr. Hoss. I withdraw my objection. 

Mr. Blaine. I want this letter read for the double 
purpose of vindicating myself from the charge of hav- 
ing made an untruthful statement on this floor, and to 
give, in the broad American sense, fair play and oppor- 
tunity to a worthy officer to be heard in a forum w^here 
he has been assailed. 

I wish further to say that if, on investigation, I had 
found I was in error in the statement I had made 
touchino; the member from the Utica district of New 
York [Mr. CoriMing'] and Provost Marshal General 
Fry, I would, mortifying as it would have been, apolo- 
gized to the House. Whether I was in error or not I 
leave to those who hear the letter of the Provost Mar- 
shal General. 

I'he Clerk read as follows : 

WAR department, 

PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL'S BUREAU, 

Washington, April 27, 1866. 
Sir : I have to thank you for repeUing as you did, in the House 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



1S9 



of Representatives, on the 25th instant, the very extraordinary assault 
upon me by Hon. Roscoe Conkling, of New York. It was a defense of 
me in a forum where I had no opportunity to be personally heard, and 
I am enabled to say that your assertions touching Mr. Conkling' s diffi- 
culties with this bureau are amply and completely justified by the facts 
which this letter will disclose. 

My official intercourse with Repi'esentatives in Congress during the 
past three years has been constant and in many cases intimate, and, 
with the solitary exception of Mr. Conkling, it has been marked, so far 
as I remember, by mutual honor and fair dealing. Mr. Conkling be- 
ing thus an exception, it is my purpose to give a brief summary of his 
connection and intercourse with this bureau. 

In the summer of 1863 Mr. Conkling made a case for himself by 
telegraphing to the War Department that the provost marshal of his 
district required legal advice, which he was thereupon empowered to 
give. 

In April, 1865, Mr. Charles A. Dana, then Assistant Secretary of 
War, without notifying me, had Mr. Conkling appointed to investigate 
all frauds in enlistments in western New York, with the stipulation 
that he should be commissioned judge advocate for the pros ?cut ion 
of any cases brought to trial, and he was so appointed to prosecute, 
before a general court-martial. Major J. A. Haddock. Mr Dana vested 
him, by several orders issued in the name of the Secretary of Wai% with- 
out the sanction of Mr. Stanton, with the most extraordinary powers. 
Among these was the right to examine the dispatches in all telegraph 
offices in tlie western division of New York, which enabled a violation 
of the sanctity of personal and business correspondence. For his ser- 
vices in this connection Mr. Conkling received, on the 9th of November 
last, from the United States, the modest fee of $3,000. AVhether he re- 
ceived, as it has been reported, from his district $5,000 more for the 
same service, and whether he received additional fees from giiilty 
parties for opposing proceedings at Utica, I am unable now to say, 
but, as hereafter shown, he was as zealous in preventing prosecutions 
at Utica, as he was in making them at Elmira ; and the main ground 
of difficulty between Mr. Conkling and myself has been that I wanted 
exposure at both places, while he wanted concealment at one. I sup- 
pose there can be no doubt among high-minded men as to the character 
of Mr. Conkling' s course in this matter. Whether his action in exer- 
cising the functions of judge advocate and receiving pay therefor 
from the United States to the amount of $3,000 while receiving his com- 
pensation as a member of Congress was a violation of the letter or spirit, 
or both, of article one, section two, of the Constitution, I leave others 
to decide. 



190 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

As to the animus of Mr. Conkling's calumnious assault upon me, it 
is true (notwithstanding his assertion that he had no personal quarrels 
with me) that the differences between him and myself arose altogether 
from my unwillingness to gratify him in certain matters in which he 
had a strong personal interest. It is true, also, that he was foiled in 
his efforts to obtain undue concessions from my bureau, and to discredit 
me in the eyes of my suiseriors. 

There have been three main issues between Mr. Conkling and my- 
self. 

The first arose in consequence of the removal of Captain Richard- 
son (the first provost marshal of Mr Conkling's district), upon a re- 
port of Judge Advocate Turner, that the proofs in his case disclosed a 
reckless persistence in fraudulent practices. Mr. Conkling complained 
of my action both to the President and War Department, but failed to 
procure any modification of ray course. 

The second issue was as to the restoring of Captain Crandall (the 
second provost marshal of the district), after I had secured his removal 
from duty on the recommendation of Major Ludington, who thoroughly 
inspected the district and reported that though not legally guilty he had 
morally pei-petrated a most glaring and inexcusable fraud on the 
Government he was sworn to serve, and that he had quieted his con- 
science by casuistry and regulated his actions by the counsel of unscru- 
pulous legal advisers. Mr. Conkling failed to get Captain Crandall re- 
stored, and the officer selected by me continued in charge cf the busi- 
ness until the office was closed. 

The third issue was as to the Government's employing counsel to 
defend Captain Crandall after he had been relieved and had carried with 
him, in violation of the orders of the Department, some twenty thou- 
sand dollars, local bounty dejjosited with him in behalf of recruits, 
and in regard to which he got into litigation. In this Mr. Conkling 
failed Counsel has not, to my knowledge, been authorized, nor have 
any lawyers been paid by the Government in that suit. 

In supi^ort of his denial of differences with me, which influenced 
his action, Mr. Conkling states the fact that we had but one personal 
interview. That is true, but it proves the reverse of what Mr. Conk- 
ling asserts, for it was of such a nature as to render other interviews 
very objectionable. I was called to Mr. Dana's office to have a verbal 
discussion with Mr. Conkling on the questions at issue, but I had by 
this time learned too much of this gentleman to transact business with 
him in that way, and I declined to do so. We had, directly and indi- 
I'ectly, much correspondence, and generally of an unpleasant character, 
and I presume under such circumstances it will be granted that men's 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



191 



personal relations will be bad, although they may have had but one 
personal interview. 

Notwithstanding Mr. Conkling's denial in the House, his own let- 
ters as well as the foregoing statements show that there were differ- 
ences, and that he was "worsted."' On the 25th of October, 1865, he 
wrote the Secretary of War, saying: . . . " It is now macy months 
since T have been able to obtain any response from the Department 
touching the interests of the Government in this District. Still 1 
venture one more trial ' ' &c. 

Mr. Conkling asserts, and presents it as an offense or crime on my 
part, that Major Haddock was my crony, confidant, &c., and that I jus- 
tified him (Haddock) down to the time when his sentence was pub- 
lished and afterward. 

These assertions are not true. Major Haddock was never my con- 
fidant or crony. Prior to his entry into the Veteran Reserve Corps 1 had 
never heard of him. He was appointed to that corps by a special order 
from the Secretary of War, without any knowledge or action on my 
part. He served under General Oakes, in Illinois, by whom he was 
highly recommended to me. 

He then served for a short time in a subordinate position in a 
branch of my office, without my becoming intimate with him, person- 
ally or officially. He has never made a social or personal call on me 
in his life. He was highly recommended by the officer under whom 
he served in my office, and was selected for a temporary provost marshal- 
ship in Pennsylvania, where he rendered efficient service, without his 
integrity or capacity being questioned. After serving for a short time 
with fidelity, so far as I know, as acting provost marshal at Buffalo, 
he was selected as acting assistant provost marshal general at Elmira 
for the reason, and that only, that I thought he was upright and sviited 
to the position. In that position I befriended and sustained him until 
I had proper evidence of his being unworthy, and not a day longer; 
but on this point I required better testimony than Hon. Roscoe ( onk- 
ling. I received a letter dated as late as March 29, 1865, from Hon. 
Hamilton Ward, Member of Congress of the district in which .Major 
Haddock was stationed, claiming to be familiar with Haddock's 
course and the motives of the persons operating against him, "and 
protesting against his removal " ; but, notwithstanditigthis, as scon as 
the official report against him was received, on the 1st of April, I had 
him relieved and his conduct put under investigation. He had not 
then been four montlis on duty as acting assistant provost marshal gen- 
eral. 

After his trial and dismissal Major Haddock came to Washington 
to get a revocation or mociification of his sentence. He pointed out to 



192 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

me instances of unfairness in his trial, but I declined to do anything 
in aid of his object, as I thought he deserved punishment, not for all 
the crimes with which Mr. Conkling charged him, but for the offenses 
of which he was really guilty. I even refused to give him a letter as 
to his behavior prior to his being accused, because I knew that such a 
letter, though perhaps not wrong in itself, would be used to accomplish 
a purpose which I did not apj^rove namely, his pardon. 

Major Haddock went on duty at Elmira as acting assistant pi'ovost 
marshal general, December 9. 1864. 

An inspection made at ray request the latter part of March, 1865, 
elicited the first information which I received suitable for i^roceeding 
against him. 

I received the report on the fir?t of April, and on the same day I 
submitted it to the Secretary of War, with the recommendation that 
Major Haddock be relieved from duty as acting assistant provost mar- 
shal general of Western New York, and that his Conduct be further 
investigated, which was approved by the Secretary of War, and Major 
Haddock was promptly relieved. 

The prosecution of Major Haddock was, on April 3 1865, made the 
special business of Mr. Conkling and the Judge Advocate General 
of the Army, as shown by a letter from Mr. Charles A. Dana, Assistant 
Secretary of War. But whenever I had an opportunity, and so far as I 
had power, I urged forward the trial of Major Haddock. I was told by 
Mr. Dana, early in April, that Mr. Conkling would prepare charges, 
but hearing nothing definite in regard to them, I, on the 22d of Ai^ril, 
1865, wrote to Mr. Conkling asking when he would be ready to proceed 
with the trial, to which I received a reply saying that he had forwarded 
the charges to the Secretary of War. This letter I at once (May 1st) re- 
ferred to the Judge Advocate General, with the request that the trial 
might take place as soon as possible. The court was ordered to con- 
vene on the 17th of May, 1865. Notwithstanding Mr. Conkling was 
directed to get his instructions from General Holt, he frequently ap- 
plied to me. On the 15th of May I referred a letter from him of the 
13th with the following indorsement: ''Respectfully referred to the 
Judge Advocate General, with the request that he will answer Mr. 
Conkling' s inqiiiries by telegraph to-day, as the court meets day after 
to-morrow. Mr. Conkling is Judge Advocate of the Court, and I recom- 
mend that all proper authority and facilities be granted to him at once. ' ' 
When the organization of the court was delayed by the absence of mem- 
bers I secured at once the detail of other officers, and notified Mr Conk- 
ling by telegraph. There are other facts bearing on this point, but the 
foregoing are, I think, sufficient to show my desire to have Major Had- 
dock tried. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 193 

Mr. Conkling, in his speech, insinuates dishonesty, saying this 
bureau should ' ' allow the War Department and the country to know 
precisely what has become of the tweoty-five million and odd dollars 
which, under the act of March 3, 1863, went to its credit." My official 
report, now partly in the hands of the Public Printer, shows in detail 
the disposition of every dollar of this money, and shows, moreover, a 
completeness and accuracy in accounts that is not surpassed, if it is 
equalled, by any bureau under the Government, and I hold a certificate 
from the Second Comptroller of the Treasury that all my accounts re- 
lating to this fund have been examined and found correct. Mr. Conk- 
ling speaks of this bureau allowing the War Department to know, &c. , 
as if they were separate branches of the Government. My bureau is a 
subordinate branch of the War Department, and I wish here to point 
out clearly the fact that my business has been conducted under the 
constant supervision and direction of the Secretary of War, and those 
authorized to act in his name. It ought not to be necessary for me to 
remind either Mr. Conkling or the "people" that Mr. Stanton has 
never been unwilling to make examinations into the conduct of his 
subordinates, nor slow to act upon the result of them. This of itself is 
a sufficient reply to Mr. Conkling' s abuse of me, especially as it is a 
fact that every request, complaint, or accusation of any importance 
made by hioi to or affecting this bureau, has been laid before the Sec- 
retary of War, and passed upon by him. It is true that the result has 
in nearly every instance been unfavorable to Mr. Conkling; and assum- 
ing that these were the differences or quarrels which were referred to 
in the debate as those in which Mr. Conkling came out "second best," 
he asserted what was not true when he denied them. 

Mr. Conkling says that he may hereafter inform Congress what 
number of all the men who received bounty reached the front, inti- 
mating that the proportion was small. I, for one, should be glad to 
obtain that information. The duty of sending men to the front rested 
with the Adjutant General of the Army and not with me. 

He also hints that he may hereafter make a damaging expose of the 
operations of my bureau. Whatever he may adduce in this connection 
he will probably not be able to disprove that it raised more than a 
million men for the Army, which, when hostilities ceased, consisted, 
notwithstanding all the losses, of one million five hundred and sixteen 
men; that it arrested and returned to the service over seventy -six 
thousand deserters, and that it raised by its own operations, in con- 
formity to law, over twenty-six million dollars, which sum has been 
properly disposed of. 

That there were frauds in my branch of the service I admit, but 
that they prevailed to a greater degree in it than in others, or that 



194 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



earnest and zealous efforts were not made by me to pursue, correct, and 
punish them, no man dare have the hardihood to assert. 

And I will here state that the fraud or loss in Government funds 
under my bureau, includin^c both that punished and that unpunished, 
has been comparatively small. 

The frauds and malpractices which did occur were almost entirely 
in connection with local bounties, which could not be contiolled by the 
United States, and which corrupted some of the officers of this bureau, 
but more of the people at large, including supervisors, agents, &c., 
selected by the poople to disburse the funds which they so lavishly be- 
stowed. 

The general management of my business has received the approval 
of all dispassionate parties who have had an opportunity to judge of it, 
including the late President and that superior officer to whoTii I have 
been directly responsible, whose vigor and whose capacity and oppor- 
tunity to judge are beyond dispute; and it will not be forgotten that 
complaints and accusations have been spread with great industry before 
the high officials last referred to. 

I have been at all times amenable to the severest form of law — the 
military code — liable at any moment to summary arrest, court-martial, 
and extreme punishment in case of any dereliction of official duty. No 
one knew or knows this fact better than Mr. Conkling, and if. while 
acting as judge advocate, under the extraordinary inquisitorial powers 
bestowed upon him by his friend Mr. Dana, he came into the possession 
of any fact impugning or impeaching my integrity as a public officer, 
he was guilty of grave public wrong and unfaithfulness if he did not 
instantly file formal charges against me with the Secretary of War. 
He can, therefore, only escape the charge of deliberate and malignant 
falsehood as a member of Congress by confessing an unpardonable breach 
of duty as judge advocate. He held both offices and took pay for both 
at the same time ; he has certainly been false to honor in one, and per- 
haps, as the sequel may show, in both. 

Copies of official documents substantiating statements herein made 
are subjoined. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

James B. Fry, 
Provost Marshal General. 
Hon. James G. Blaine, 

House of Rejjresentatives, Washington, D. C, 

Mr. Blaine. I do not ask that the accompanying 
documents shall be read. I only ask that the letter 
and documents be printed. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 195 

Mr, Hoss. I move that ten thousand extra copies 
be printed. 

The Speaker. That motion will be referred to the 
Committee on Printing:. 

Mr. GonMiiKj. I ask that everything be read. I 
enjoy it very much. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

WAR DEPARTiMENT, 

Wnsliingtoii City, April 3, 1865. 
Sir : I am instructed by the Secretary of War to authorize you to 
investigate all cases of fraud in the provost marshal' s department of 
the western division of New York, and all misdemeanors connected 
witli recruiting. You will from time to time make report to this De- 
partment of the progress of your labors, and will apply for any special 
authority for which you luay have occasion. The Judge Advocate 
General will be instnicted to issue to you an appointment as special 
judge advocate, for the prosecution of any cases that may be brought to 
trial before a military tribunal. You will also appear in behalf of this 
Department in any cases that it may be deemed more expedient to bring 
before the civil tribunals. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

C. A. Dana, 
Assistant Secretary of War. 
Hon. RoscoE Conkling. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

Washington City, A}^! 3, 1865. 
Hon. Roscoe Conkling having been appointed by the Secretary of 
War to investigate transactions connected with recruiting in the 
western division of New York, all telegi'aph companies and operators 
are respectfully requested to afford him access to any dispatches which 
he may require for the purpose of detecting frauds and bringing crim- 
inals to trial. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

C. A. Dana. 
Assistant Secretary of War. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

Wi/shingto)! City, April 3, 1865. 
Hon. Roscoe Conkling having been appointed by the Secretary of 
War to investigate transactions connected with recruiting in the western 



196 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

division of New York, all provost marshals and other military officers 
are hereby directed to give him free access to all their official records 
and correspondence, and to furnish him certified copies of any papers 
that he may require. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

C. A. Dana, 
Assisf(mt Secretary of War. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

W(fshinf/ton City, December 21, 1864. 
General: I have the honor to return to you the papers in the case 
of Captain Richardson, provost marshal twenty first district New York, 
and respectfully recommend that said Richardson be at once arrested 
and held in custody for trial by court-martial. The proofs in this case 
disclose a reckless persistency in fraudulent practices that not only de- 
mands his arrest and trial, but also a complete renovation in the office 
of said district. * * * 

I am, General, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

L. C. Turner, 
Judge Advocate. 
Brigadier General James B. Fry, 

Provost Marshal General. 

Washington, D. C, March 31, 1865. 

Sir: In obedience to paragraph seventy eight, Special Orders No. 
130. Adjutant General's Office, current series, and to your vei'bal in- 
structions, I made an inspection of the board of enrolment for the 
twenty-first district. State of New York, and have the honor to report 
as follows : 

The prominent men of that district, the supervisors of its various 
towns and people, generally united in a determination to fill its quota 
under last call without sending citizens of the district. To this end a 
bounty of $725 was provided for every recruit, and each supervisor was 
authorized to procure men. If recruits could be had for less than the 
above-mentioned sum, the difference accrued to the supervisor. The 
board of supervisors thus became a board of bounty brokers. Contracts 
were made with a notorious bounty broker, Aaron Richardson, for a 
supply of men. 

This machinery for filling the quota being properly constructed with 
great consideration for the district, and regardless of the rights of the 
Government, there was found only one difficulty in its practical opera- 
tion. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



197 



An order from the acting assistant provost marshal general of the 
western division of New York required a deposit with officers of the 
United States of five-eighths of the bounty paid recruits. This was 
objectionable to the class of men furnished by the supervisors and Con- 
tractor Richardson, who very greatly preferred taking care of their own 
funds; and therefore recruiting did not progress rapidly. Some ingen- 
ious men of the district devised a cunning scheme to obviate this diffi- 
culty. Each recruit was instructed to say to the provost marshal that 
he desired no local bounty; that he went from better motives, and that 
Government provided as large bounty as he cared to accept. 

The provost marshal admired the disinterestedness of the recruit 
and mustered him in. Men were now obtained rapidly. Bounty 
jumpers came to Uticaby car-loads, and, to use their own slang, the en- 
rolling board of the twenty-first district became " a perfect walk." 
These facts are notorious throughout the western division of New York, 
and are amply proven by papers referred to me from Provost Marshal 
General's Office and herewith returned. 

During the administration of Captain Crandall, provost marshal 
twenty-first district, from 24th January to 14th March, 1865, the records 
of his office show that there were enlisted forty-one men who refused 
all bounty, two hundred and sixty-nine who accepted fifty d(illars, 
thirty-five who accepted from one hundred to two hundred dollars, and 
one hundred and twenty-three who received more than three hundred 
dollars. 

In all, four hundred and sixty-eight wei'e mustered iu by Captain 
Crandall, of whom Major Haddock, acting assistant provost marshal 
general, western division of New York, reports that fifty-five per cent, 
deserted before starting to the field. Had Captain Crandall retained in 
his hands five-eighths of the bounty received by the two hundred and 
fifty deserters, there would have accrued to the Government $109,000. 
The amount paid over by him was very small, but I was unable to ascer- 
tain it exactly. 

Upon the 13th March the enrolling board of this district was sus- 
pended and Major Beadle, third regiment Veteran Reserve Corps, re- 
lieved Captain Crandall Major Beadle states that he found the 
affairs of the office in confusion. His statement is appended, marked 
"Exhibit A."' 

Captain Crandall admitted that he had in possession $26, 753 belong- 
ing to reci-uits and V ounty brokers, but refused to turn it over for rea- 
sons given in his communication to Provost Marshal General, dated 
11th March, 1865, herewith returned. 

It is proper to state, in relation to the violation of Major Haddock's 



198 CONKLINfi AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

ordei' to retain five eighths of recruits' bounty, that in the first seven- 
teen cases, Captain Crandall explained why he did it and Major Had- 
dock was satisfied with the explanation. Upon this Captain Crandall 
ba^'ed his subsequent action. The correspondence is annexed marked 
" Exhibit B." 

Aside from this transparent scheme to defraud the Government by 
filling the quota of their district with credits instead of men, there is 
nothing objectionable in the official conduct of the board. Some com- 
munications upon file in the Provost Marshal General's Oflice allege 
that the surgeon passed unfit men. But I am disposed to regard these 
cases as incident to haste and overwork, and not as showing criminality 
upon the surgeon's part. 

The character of the surgeon (Babcock) has been above reproach, as 
also that of Captain Crandall. Commissioner Munroe has not enjoyed 
so fully the conflrlence of his fellow-citizens. 

I do not regard the conduct of the board as legally guilty, but mor- 
ally they have perpetrated a most glaring and inexcusable fraud upon 
the Government they were sworn to serve. They quieted their con- 
science by casuistry, and regulated their actions by the counsel of un- 
scrupulous legal advisers. Misled by sophistry, by an undue desire to 
serve well their friends, and by constant pressure from cowardlj^ neigh- 
bors dreading a draft, they did this great wrong to their countiy, dis- 
graced themselves and brought upon their district a widespread reputa- 
tion for rascality. 

I respectfully recommend that every member of the board of enrol- 
ment for the twenty-first district of New York be dismissed the service, 
and that the money in possession of Captain Crandall be seized. And 
because of the disgraceful prejudice existing among the demoralized 
people of that district against filling their quota with decent men, thus 
preventing one of their own citizens from doing his duty to his country 
as well as his county, that an officer of the Army be detailed as provost 
marshal of that district. I have the honor to repoii further, that inci" 
dent to the inspection of the twenty-first district facts in i-elation to the 
administration of Major John A. Haddock, acting assistant jirovost 
marshal general for western division of New York, were educed which 
led me to the conviction that he is unfit for the position he holds. 

Men of undoubted character charge him with being insolent and 
abusive in discharging his duties, and grossly immoral ; that he is in 
collusion with bounty brokers, and prostitutes his official position to 
personal ends. For proof of these charges T refer, at Utica, to the post- 
master and Hon. R. Conkling; at Elmira, to the mayor. J. I. Nix, 
Postmaster D. F. Pickering. Provost Marshal J. S. Wright. Colonel B. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 199 

F. Tracy, commanding post; Captain Eugene Divin, and Peter A. La 
France; also to Colonel L. C. Baker. 

Very respectfully submitted, 

E. H. LUDINGTON, 

Ma/or, Assistant InspeHor Ocncrnl. 
Brevet Brigadier General J. A, Hardie, 

Inspector General United States Army. 
Respectfully referred to the Pi'ovost Marshal Genei'al, 

James A. Hardie, 

Inspector Oeneral. 
War Department, April 1, 1865. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL'S BUREAU, 

M^ashiiHjton, ]).('., April 1, 1865. 
Respectfully submitted to the honorable Secretary of War: 
1. I recommend that ]\Iajor J. A. Haddock be relieved from duty 
as acting assistant provost marshal general of western division of New 
York, and that his conduct be further investigated, and that Major S. 
B. Hayman, United States Army, be detailed for that post. Major 
Hayman is on duty in Indiana and can be spared for the j^urpose. 

2 That the appointments of the members of the board of enrolment 
in the twenty-first district of New York be revoked. 

James B. Fry, 
^ ProTost MarxJial General. 

Presented to Secretary of War April 1, 1865, and approved by him. 

James B. Fry, 
Provost Marshal General, 

HEADQUARTERS DRAFT RENDEZVOUS, 

Ehnira, New Tori', Fehruari/ 20, 1865. 

Major: The twenty-first district, New York, is evading General 
Order 305. Men from that district bring with them to general rendez- 
vous from twenty to twenty-two dollars each. The supervisors have 
taken some action with a view to evade the order. The district is 
filling its quota with bounty jumpers. Fifteen deserters from Auburn 
in one squad. 

This is giving to this district an undue advantage over the other 
districts. There is now a rush of bounty jumpers for Uiica. Major 
Haddock, acting assistant provost mai'shal general, declares himself 



200 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



powerless to correct this evil. I inclose telegrams from him to provost 
marshal at Utica, which show his views of the subject. General Order 
No. 305 is worthless and should be revoked unless the recruits are re- 
quired to bring their money to general rendezvous. Unless this is 
stopped at once other districts will be compelled, in self-defense, to re- 
sort to the same dodge, and one of the be*t ordei's ever issued become a 
nullity. 

I suggest that commanding officers of rendezvous be instructed to 
refuse to I'eceipt for any recruit and substitute from this district unless 
he brings with him his local bounty or the amount paid him for be- 
coming a substitute. 

T am, Major, very resi^ectfully, your obedient servant. 

B. F. Tracy, 
Colonel, \21th U. S. G. T., CoiiiynandiiKj Hoiilcxrous. 
Major H. Clay Wood, 

Amstant Adjutant General, Wafihine/ton, I). C. 

HEADQUARTEES, CAMP SEWARD, 

Auhtrn, New Ye>rl\ Metreh 4, 1865. 
Sir: I have the honor to lay befoi'e you the following items ia re- 
gard to the provost marshal's office at Utica. I learned from two ap- 
parently reputable men from Utica that the business at that office is 
conducted in the following manner: the supervisors of the county met 
and resolved to pay a county bounty of $600 ; they met again and re- 
solved to add $135 to the $600, making $725 local bounty to be paid by 
the county; they then resolved themselves into a reciuiting committee 
to furnish the quota of the county ; they get the men at as low a figure 
as they can and charge the county the full amount of $725. The pro- 
vost marshal and the examining surgeon seem to be but the creatures 
of these supervisors. Men rotten with venereal disease, totally unfit for 
any duty, are passed by the surgeon and sent here for duty. One old 
man, just discharged for disability, having the piles badly, before he 
got to his home was grabbed by these Utica harpies, put through by 
the officials, with, as he alleges, but $190, somebody pocketing the 
balance, and sent here. He is utterly worthless as a soldier. Nine- 
tenths of the recruits sent here from that office are the most worthless 
set of scoundrels you ever put your eyes upon. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

James L. Lott, 
First Lieutenant \^th T. IL ('., (knnrnandinrj Camp. 
Major John A. Haddock, 

Acting Assistant Frowst Marslial General, 

Western Dimsion JVew Yorh. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



201 



HEADQUARTERS 

192D RKGIMBNT new YORK VOLUNTEERS, 

AJliany, FdniKtry 4, 18()5. 
Colonel: I have the honor most respectfully to protest against the 
reception of recruits for the one hundred and ninety second regiment 
New York volunteers, who are mustered by the provost marshal at 
Utica. The men who have been received at the Veteran Reserve corps 
barracks from that city are, without doubt, "bounty jumpers," and 
should not have been nuistered by any intelligent mustering officer. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

N. G. AXTELL, 
Colonel 192 J liegliuent New York Volunteers. 
Lieutenant Colonel F. Townsend, 
Hviicrlnterident Recruitln(j Service. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

provost marshal general's bureau, 

Wdshiiigtoit, D. C, Nonnilwr Q, l«6r). 

Sir : The instructions of this bureau required provost marshals to 
turn over to the nearest disbursing officer all funds which came into 
their hands. The bureau having been informed that P. B. Crandall, 
then provost marshal of the Utica district. New York, had iir his pos- 
session a large amount of money and bonds, and that he had not turned 
over the same or reported the fact to this ofHce, he was ordered on the 
4th of March, 1805, to turn over the money, which he refused to do. 

On the 10th of the same month the order was repeated, and again 
disobeyed, he stating as a reason that he had been advised by counsel 
of high stand ing that he would be held personally responsible for the 
money. 

On the following day the order was repeated, and again disobeyed, 
with the statement that Ward Hunt, Esq., his counsel, advised him 
that he could not safely comply with the order. 

On the 30th of March he was again ordered by telegraph from this 
office to turn over the money at once, and on the 1st day of April fol- 
lowing he answered by telegraph that he would immediately comply. 

It subsequently appeared that instead of turning over the whole 
amount, $33,995.10, which he had previously stated was in his pos- 
session, lie had only turned over $8,095. 

On the 6th day of April his attention was called to that fact. 

To this a reply, dated April 18, was received on the 21st day of 
April, in which I was informed that the bonds in question ($20,000) 
had been seized by a writ of replevin at the suit of Richardson, and in 
which letter Captain Crandall stated as follows: 



202 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

' ' I respectfully request the Government to take charge of the suit 
and relieve me from responsibility in regard to it. In the event, how- 
ever, that no charge is taken of it by the Government, I have placed it 
under the direction of Messrs. Hunt, Waterman & Hunt, who will 
appear as my attorneys in the case. ' ' 

On the 9th day of March, 1865, Captain Crandall was suspended 
from office, and on the 31st of May, 1865, his services as provost mar- 
shal were discontinued. 

No further information on the subject of the $20,000 in county 
bonds was received from Captain Crandall until the letter dated Sep- 
tember 15, a copy of which is transmitted by Hon. Eoscoe Conkling. 

I had never approved of Captain Crandall' s course in relation to 
turning in these moneys, nor of the intercourse between him and 
Aaron Richardson, the bounty broker, by which he, Crandall, came in 
possession of $20,000 county bonds, now under discussion. Having, 
however, taken these bonds. Captain Crandall was ordered to turn 
them over to a designated disbursing officer of the Government, which 
he refused to do. This refusal resulted in his suspension from duty, a 
correspondence, and a renewal of the orders to turn in the money, in 
answer to which renewed orders the fact appeared that during the cor- 
respondence and delay occasioned by Captain Crandall's disobedience, 
the money was taken out of his hands by a writ of replevin at the 
suit of Aaron Richardson, tlie bounty broker. It will be observed that 
in his first report of April 13, on the subject. Captain Crandall asks 
the Government to take charge of the suit and relieve him from the 
responsibility in regard to it, but says: " In the event, however, that 
no charge is taken of it by the Government, I have placed it under the 
direction of Messrs. Hunt, Waterman & Hunt, who will appear as my 
counsel." 

When I received this letter, I did not think, and do not now, that 
the Government was called upon to relieve him from the responsibility 
in this matter, and as he contemplated and had provided for the con- 
tingency of the Government not assuming the suit, and had employed 
counsel, and placed it under their direction, no action from this office 
was necessary, and I therefore took none. 

In his letter of September 15, renewing the subject, he says, " Un- 
less the Department, therefore, gives instructions to the attorneys for 
the defense, Hunt, Waterman & Hunt. Ucica, New York, and assumes 
the responsibility of the ?uit, the defense will be abandoned by me, and 
Mr. Richardson will be allowed to take a judgment for the recovery of 
his bonds and to obtain the possession of the same." 

I did not then, and do not now, consider that the threat to abandon 
the suit, contained in this quotation, called for any action from this office. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 203 

Mr. Ciaudall saw fit as a Government officer to receive these bonds from 
a bounty broker; he refused to obey the orders of this bureau as to the 
disposition of them, and permitted them to pass out of his hands, and 
become the subject of a civil suit; he assumed the suit and employed 
counsel to conduct it, the same counsel, it may be remarked, under 
whose advice he refusel to obey the orders of this bureau to turn in the 
funds. He now (assuming that the within letter speaks for him) again 
asks the Government to assume the suit, that is, pay the lawyers' bills, 
Mr. Crandall having employed the lawyers and placed the case under 
their direction. I do not advise this course; on the contrary, I recom- 
mend that the responsibility which Mr. Crandall assumed in this mat- 
ter rest with him. If he adopts the course proposed in his letter of 
September 15, to abandon the suit and let Richardson have the bonds, it 
will not, I presume, invalidate the right to proceed against him for the 
amount if the Government has any good claim to it. I do not deem the 
insinuation made in the letter of Mr. Conkling, that an opportunity is 
sought to affront or punish the Union people of his district, worthy of 
denial or comment, 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JAMES B. FRY, 
Provost Marshal Oeneral. 
Hon. Edwin M, Stanton, Secretary of War. 

Before the Clerk had concluded the reading of 
the above documents, 

Mr. Bincjlumi asked whether the further reading 
of the documents coukl not be dispensed with. 

Mr. Coiikling. I do not wonder at the suggestion 
of the gentleman from Ohio, but the gentleman will 
see thei'e is a good deal of this which is personal to 
me, and whatever there is of that sort I want to heai'. 
I do not want to burden the House. 

Mr. Smitlh. I suppose the entire matter read 
there is official, and consists of communications between 
that Department and the gentleman from New York, 
with which he is familiar. It can be printed. 

Mr. Conhling. I will not trespass upon the attention 
of the House to have it read. It is all new to me, and 



204 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



gentlemen will appreciate my desire in having it read. 

The Spectker. The reading will soon be finished. 

The paper was then read through. 

Mr. Conhling. I appreciate the indifference with 
which the House must listen to an issue such as this, 
in its design on one side so personal and individual in 
its character ; and at this hour of the day I shall not 
presume so far upon the good-nature or the sense of 
Justice of my fellow-members as to ask them for 
any great length of time to hear an explanation or 
a statement the main object of which must seem to 
be to repel a purely personal attack. I can, however, 
assure the House with the uttermost sincerity that 
for everything in this most extraordinary communi- 
cation savoring of imputation upon me I am consoled, 
ay, doubly consoled, by the fact that I shall become 
the humble instrument of initiating an investigation 
much needed and good for the people of the whole 
country, wholesome and cleansing to the future. 

Before I sit down, Mr, Speaker, I shall yield to 
some gentleman to move, and I know the House will 
order it, a committee to investigate a subject which 
has now ceased to be individual and become public, a 
subject which concerns the rights and interests not 
only of that great procession of mourners and cripples 
which war has left in our land, not only of the tax- 
payers of the country, but also to those in every walk 
and avenue of life, because all have a deep interest in 
preserving the purity of the Government in all its de- 
partments. 

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I shall have no part in 
that committee. I shall not move it, as it would not 



CONKLINU AND BLAINE FRY CONTROVERSY. 205 

be proper for me to move it, but a committee will, I 
trust, be appoiuted to bring fairly to the public knowl- 
edge some of the matters whereof I shall briefly speak. 

Now, Sir, asking the indulgence of the House for 
a space, I wish to take up some of the matters in this 
communication of General Fry as I was able to note 
them in the reading, which point directly, and which 
are intended to point injuriously, to me. 

Mr. Speaker, I did not file in the War Department 
long ago information in reference to widespread frauds 
in recruiting in the State of New York in which ex- 
tensive combinations of active men were banded to- 
gether in office and out ; I did not act as counsel for 
the Government in unearthing and breaking up these 
combinations and exposing the actors; I did not de- 
vote upward of four months of patient labor in an at- 
tempt to arrest the enormous I'obberies and wrongs 
which j)revailed in the State of New York, nor did I 
make an assault upon this bureau here, without count- 
ing the cost and knowing the consequences. 

I was prepared for all the calumnies and all the 
responsibility that he must take who strikes at the 
thieves, marauders, and miscreants who have fattened 
upon the necessities and needs of their country. I 
knew the resources and desperation of the men who 
have made wealth out of the public woe. I under- 
stood perfectly that I must be prepared for all comers 
of this description, and it was to this that I referred 
in the avowal of my readiness to maintain my allega- 
tions of wrong in the Provost Marshal Bureau at all 
times and places. I will not say "elsewhere," for 
fear of unsettling the nerves of some who hear me ; 



206 



CONKLTNG AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



but avoiding tbe expression "elsewhere," which is so 
dreadful, I say that I did not forget, nor did I desire 
to avoid, the responsibility of being asked to make 
good by proof the accusations I made ; of course I ex- 
pected, by dispatches to newspapei's instigated by 
General Fry and his satellites, by every mode, secret 
and open, of influencing the public Judgment, and 
diverting attention from the objects of accusation, to 
be vilified ; and I hoped to be permitted, if not invited, 
to point out to some authority competent to receive and 
act upon it the evidence on which I relied. That 
opportunity will be afforded if a committee shall be 
raised ; and now I wish to call attention to three or 
four things contained in the letter of Genei'al Fry, and 
I will not go further on this occasion. 

It is stated by this officer, as the House has heard, 
that upon a certain occasion I telegraphed to the 
Secretary of War, in the language of the communica- 
tion, as I caught it, in order " to make a case for my- 
self ; " that is, to procure my own professional em- 
ployment. It was said that my dispatch was to the 
eifect that the provost marshal of my district wanted 
advice. Let me state that transaction, all of it being- 
matter of record in the War Department, so that it 
can be unmistakably verified or challenged. 

An alleged deserter was arrested by the provost 
marshal of my district without the process of any 
court. A writ of habeas corpus was sued out of the 
supreme court of the State of New York. Acting 
upon a decision which had been made years before in 
a western case, and an opinion, or rather a charge, 
given a grand jury by Mr. Justice Nelson, of the 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSV. 207 

8 ;prerae Coui't of tlie Uuited States, the officer made 
a return, in substance, that although no process of law 
had been issued for the arrest, he, as a military officer 
of t!ie United States, held his prisoner and refused to 
obe}' the mandate of the writ. An attachment was 
issu"d and we were on the point of collision between the 
civil and the military authorities. I telegraphed the 
Secretaiy of War nothing except the facts, and my 
recommendation that he should direct the officer what 
to do. There was need of this. It was in 1863; a 
time in the State of New York when my colleagues 
well remember that it would only have been necessary 
that a collision should have occurred between the civil 
authority of the State and the military authority of the 
nation upon the issue of the habeas corpus and the 
effect would have been like drawing a match in a 
magazine of powder. 

The Secretary of War telegraphed that the pro- 
vost marshal must hold his prisoner at all events. I 
do not now profess to give the precise language, but 
it was that he must hold him and stand by his posi- 
tion, and the dispatch requested me to appear as his 
counsel, to take an appeal, and to argue the question 
between the military authorities of the United States 
and the judicial authority of New York. 

I did appear ; I did argue the case, and although 
that is neither here nor there, the decision was reversed, 
and reversed by one of the purest patriots and one of 
the most honored judges that ever graced New York's 
bench, and the decision stands as a monument of learn- 
inoj raised at a most critical and disordered time. 

An appeal was taken to the court in hanc. And 



208 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



there again I was requested by the Secretary of War, 
and I think the Attorney General upon the applica- 
tion of the district attorney of the United States, to 
act as counsel, and I did so. The decision was not re- 
versed, and it performed a v^ery useful part at a very 
important Juncture. 

That, Mr. Speakei', was my connection with that 
transaction, and that was all of it ; and upon this, an 
officer at the head of a bureau has dared to send here 
a letter on pretense of defending himself, containing a 
groundless libel, deliberately written to stab the repu- 
tation of a Representative in retaliation for discharging 
his duty here. 

I do not mean to be led into much zeal over the 
matter ; but it is a bad plan for a man unjustly accused 
to resort to this sort of counter assault. 

Again, this writer states that I was appointed, if 
I understand it aright, without the knowledge or 
assent of the Secretary of War, but by the Assistant 
Secretary of War, Mr. Dana, judge advocate for a cer- 
tain purpose. Let me state briefly that transaction. 
During the period referred to, or before, detectives 
were sent by the War Department into the State of 
New York, to endeavor to ferret out, if possible, and 
put a stop to frauds in i-ecruiting. These detectives, 
it seems, had been directed by the authorities to apply 
to me, among others, for advice and information as to 
persons in various localities whose statements could be 
relied on. They came, several of them, and repeatedly, 
to me. They came in the night as well as in the day, 
and communicated to me various fragments and bits of 
evidence which they collected, showing rather the ex- 



OONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



209 



tent of the evil, and the difficulty of getting at the 
bottom of it than anything else. 

Weeks elapsed, and very little information was 
gathered or, as they expressed it, although they could 
get moral evidence enough, they could get no legal evi- 
dence. At length I promised that when I should be 
relieved of engagements in the courts which were then 
pressing, I would investigate, as far as I could, various 
things which they and I suspected. I did so ; and I 
sent to the War Department such information as I 
gathered, and some very pregnant disclosures which 
were made. Having done this, acting as a citizen, I 
supposed my connection with it was to cease. But 
afterward — I cannot state the date precisely; it was in 
April, a year ago— I received in the city of Syracuse, 
fifty-three miles from my home, while I was there pro- 
fessionally engaged, an ui'gent telegram from the 
Secretary of War, asking me to come to Washington. 
As soon as I could release myself I took the cars, and, 
riding night and day, reached here in ignorance of the 
purpose for which I was summoned. Arriving here 
in the morning, I went to the War Department, and 
there had an interview with Mr. Stanton, the Secretary 
of War. He explained his sending for me, and stated 
to me certain facts, and I stated to him other facts 
relative to the subject of frauds and maladministia- 
tion ; and he proposed that, as counsel for the Govern- 
ment, I should investigate and prosecute, until the 
enormities discovered should be ferreted out and the 
guilty convicted. I at first declined, for reasons con- 
nected with my other professional engagements, know- 
ing that pre[>aratory to leaving home for the present 



210 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



session of Congress I should need all my time and 
strength in my ordinary business. 

In my place, I suggested to the Secretary a gen- 
tleman, whose name I need not mention here, but it is 
one of the best and purest names in the State of New 
York, a gentleman of very high standing at the bar, and 
whom I hoped might be able to give the matter his 
attention, and I advised that to him rather than to me 
the retainer should be given. The answer of the Sec- 
retary was in effect, No, I know you, and I want you 
to do this, believing you will do it with activity and 
vigor, or some like remark of confidence. I took some 
little time to consider it, debating with myself. Upon 
reflection, I assented, and the Secretary himself directed 
in person and in my presence to be drawn up and 
presented to me a retainer, which I believe has been 
read among these papers. That, sir, was the origin of 
that engagement, and of that transaction. Yet, the 
author of the remarkable production on the table ven- 
tures to insinuate, if he does not state, that I sought 
this employment, and obtained it, not from the Secre- 
tary of War, but from Mr. Dana, and that without 
the authority or assent, and I think without the knowl- 
edge, of the Secretary. I went to my home, disregard- 
ing and neglecting, as some persons who now hear me 
know, professional employments vastly more profitable 
to me, and devoted more than four months of most un- 
tiring, faithful labor to this investigation. I threw up 
numerous other retainers and gave undivided attention 
to this. I gave to it an effort which, although anybody 
else might have made it, and which did me no credit 
in tlie world, I stop to say, brought into the Treasury 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



211 



of the United States several hundred thousand dollars, 
and checked a most heady tide of swindling. 

The investigation led, aaiong other things, to the 
trial of this assistant provost marshal general, of whom 
General Fry says so much, and yet so little ; a trial 
which alone consumed about eight weeks, at places 
distant from my home. When at last it was over, I de- 
clined to go further, thinking my poor share had been 
done, and finding it destructive to my regular business 
to engage in trials so interminable and absorbing, and 
r made report to the War Department and to the dis- 
trict attorney of the United States of the results which 
had been reached. 

Some time after this I received, as other acting 
counsel do, I believe, a suggestion that I should 
present my bill. 

I made out and sent to the War Department an 
account of the precise sum I had actually advanced in 
money, as travelling and other necessary expenses, 
rendering the amount to a farthing, and I made out 
no other account and no other charge. But I stated 
to the Secretary that I preferred not to do so, but to 
leave him to fix the amount ; that the service was un- 
usual to me, and that he better than I could judge of 
its value. I declined to fix any charge, but left it to 
him to fix such sum, whatever it might be, as he deemed 
the service worth ; this I deemed at least fair to the 
(Tovernment, more than fair, for had I wished extrava- 
gant pay I should have taken another course. 

In reply I received from the Secretary of War a 
letter, in which he stated his opinion, and his opinion 
as a lawyer and as Secretary of War is a tolerably 



212 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

good one. Perhaps it will not be considered a remark 
too much aside, considering the intimations we have 
heard, if I pause, and render to the Secretary of War 
my personal thanks, and my testimony to the thanks 
which I believe the nation owes him for the integrity, 
the courage, and the manhood which he has given at 
the expense of his health to the American people dur- 
ing the darkest passage in their life. The Secretary 
of War, in reply to my letter, wrote to me, saying that 
he deemed $8,000 a moderate sum for the labor which 
had been performed, and if that should be satisfactory 
to me, it would be very satisfactory to him. I re- 
turned an answer that it was entirely satisfactory, as I 
may say any other sum he might have fixed would 
have been, as I did not consider it an occasion out of 
which profit was to be made, or in which even such a 
charge might be made as any lawyer fi.t to conduct such 
a prosecution would have expected from a private 
client. 

Mr. jRoss. If it will not discompose the gentle- 
man too much, I would ask him to state whether that 
was during the time he was drawing pay as a member 
of Congress. 

Mr. Conklmg. I do not quite understand the 
pertinence of the question of the gentleman from 
Illinois, [Mr. lioss']. But I will endeavor to enlighten 
him. He probably knows, for I presume that infor- 
mation has extended to him, that the term of members 
of Congress commences on the 4th of March. And as 
the retainer whicli I have spoken of was in April, 
which, I will inform the gentleman, is a month that 
comes after March in the calendar, he will very likely 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 213 

be able, by the rale of three, or by some otlier rule 
with wliich he is familiar, to ciplier out whether I was 
a member of Congress at the time or not. I suppose the 
gentleman put his (piestion all in the way of good- 
nature ; and I give my explanation to him in the same 
way. 

I should be sorry to suppose that the member 
from Illinois, or any other member of this House™ in- 
deed, I should be sorry as an American to suppose 
that the standard of intelligence anywhere in the 
country is so low, that any human being, unless it be 
that distinguished mathematician and warrior, Provost 
Marshal General Fry, believes there is the slightest 
impropriety in a man who is a member of Congress 
practising his profession as counsel in courts, or accept- 
ing from the Grovernment of the United States or from 
any other client a retainer for such professional 
services. It would be very extraordinary, indeed, if 
some distinguished gentlemen, whom I will not name, 
who have recently performed most conspicuous profes- 
sional sei' vices for Government while they were mem- 
bers of Congress, had subjected themselves to the 
criticism of the gentleman from Illinois, or of anybody 
whatever, always excepting, of course. Provost Marshal 
Genei'al Fry. 

So much for that part of this bundle of papers 
given to a pretended statement of the circumstance of 
my acting as counsel for the United States. 

I come to the next point which occurs to me. 

There is a statement, if I apprehended it aright, 
that some effort was made by me to have " conceal- 
ment " — T think that was the word — in regard to the 



214 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

twenty-first congressional district. That is mere as- 
sertion. No circumstances are stated upon which it 
could be founded, therefore I cannot dissect it, but I 
pronounce the statement utterly and absolutely ground- 
less — nothing whatever of truth can be found in it. 
On the contrary, in the investigation which took place 
before the court-martial to which reference has been 
made, everything that could be investigated pertaining 
to the twenty-first congressional district was investi- 
gated. The matter of recruiting there was held up, 
that the light might shine through and through it ; 
and nothing in that statement amazes me more than 
that the Provost Marshal General or anybody else 
should dare, even in so daring a document, to put on 
record an assertion so utterly baseless. 

So far I have noticed only some of the more far- 
fetched libels in these papers. I come now to the 
(question which was made by the member who caused 
this letter to be read, the pretense that it in some way 
bolstered up the assertions made by him the other day. 
This letter was read in part, we were told, to show 
that I was not warranted in pronouncing untrue the 
statement that I had had personal " quarrels " witli 
the Provost Marshal General. I beg leave, Mr. 
Speaker, to remind gentlemen of the precise statement 
which on that occasion I pronounced untrue. The 
member from Maine said — I read from the Globe — 

" I do not suppose that the House of Eepresentatives care anything 
more than the Committee on Military Affairs about the great recruit- 
ing frauds of New York or the quarrels of the gentleman from New 
York with General Fry, in which quarrels, it is generally understood, 
the gentleman came out second best at the War Department. ' ' 

I will not stop to read furtliei' (although I pro- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 215 

pose to have all I have marked inserted in my remarks) 
the various forms in which the statement was made 
that I had had personal quari'els with Provost Mar- 
shal General Fry. 

Mr. Blaine. I hope the gentleman will read the 
whole. Tf he will show me the word " personal " in 
the speech to which he is replying, I will reward him. 
He cannot do it. He is putting his own interpi'eta- 
tion upon it. Let the gentleman read all that he is 
going to print. 

Mr. ConMing. Mr. Speaker, I hope the active 
member from Maine w^ill preserve himself as free from 
agitation as possible. 

Mr. Blaine. I demand that whatever the gentle- 
man puts in the Globe he shall read. 

The 8j)ealier. Does the gentleman from New^ 
York yield to the gentleman from Maine ? 

Mr. ConMing. I am not asked to yield. The 
Chair will see that all this interruption is in defiance 
of the proprieties of debate. I have no objection to 
the member from Maine being heard, however, at any 
length he pleases. 

Mr. Blaine. I rise to a point of ordei'. 

The Speaker. The gentleman will state his point 
of order. 

Mr. Blaine. My point of order is that the gen- 
tleman from New York has no i-ight to insert in the 
(ilobe what is not read either by himself or by the 
Clerk. I object to his doing so. 

The Speaher. The gentleman has the right to ob- 
ject to its being printed in the Globe if it is not read. 

Mr. ConMing. Mr. Speaker, this is a little epi- 



216 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

sode, I suppose, for the amusement and diversion of 
the House. It is quite unnecessary. The member 
had better be quiet ; I am entirely disposed to have 
the whole passage read ; and I will ask to have it 
read. I intended to send it to the Globe reporters for 
insertion. I supposed the member knew what liad 
already been printed in the Globe as coming from 
him. 

Mr. Hoss. Will the gentleman from New York 
yield to me a moment ? 

Ml'. OonJding. For what purpose ? 

Mr. Moss. I desire to ask the gentleman whether 
he was drawing pay as Judge advocate at the same 
time when he was I'eceiving $3,000 a year fi-om the 
Government as a member of Congress. 

Mr. Colliding. I will answer the gentleman's 
question, Mr. Speaker; and I ask the Clerk to suspend 
for one moment the reading till I do so, because 
nothing interests me in connection with this matter 
more than the laudable curiosity of the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Iloss\. 

I beg, Mr. Speaker, to assure the gentleman " con- 
fidentially," as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Stevens\ would say, and I hope he will regard it as a 
confidential communication, that I never did receive 
salary as jndge advocate during the period he refers 
to, or during any other period ; not one penny. In- 
deed, Mr. Speaker, I found myself very unexpectedly 
elevated when I saw the announcement in some paper 
that this retainer which the Government had given me 
made me acting judge advocate for the purpose of 
trying a case. It was merely an employment as coun- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



217 



sel ; and the counsel fee which was paid is, I beg to 
assure the gentleman, the only compensation that I 
ever received for my services. I never received any 
[)ay as Judge advocate during any period whatever. 

I now ask the Clerk to read the remarks which I 
have sent to the desk; all that are marked. They are 
the I'emarks of the member from Maine. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose that the House of Representatives 
care anything more than the Committee on Military Affairs about the 
great recruiting frauds in New York, or the quarrels of the gentleman 
from New York with General Fry, in which quarrels it is generally 
understood the gentleman came out second best at the War Department. 
I do not think that such questions ought to be obtruded here. 

Though the gentleman from New York has had some difference 
with General Fry, yet I take pleasure in saying that, as I believe, there 
is not in the American Army a more honorable and high-toned officer 
than General Fry. That cfilicer, I doubt not, is ready to meet the gen- 
tleman from New York or anybody else in the proper forum. I must 
say that I do not think it is any very creditable proceeding for the gen- 
tleman from New York here in this place to traduce General Fry as a 
military officer when he has no opportunity to be heard. I do not con- 
sider such a proceeding the highest specimen of chivalry that could be 
exhibited. 

The gentleman from New York has had his issues with General 
Fry at the War Department. They have been adjudicated upon by the 
Secretary of War ; and I leave it for the gentleman to say whether he 
came out first best. I do not know the particulars ; the gentleman can 
inform the House. All I have to say is — and in this I believe I speak 
the sentiment of a majority of the members of this House — that James 
B. Fry is a most efficient officer, a high-toned gentleman, whose char- 
acter is without spot or blemish ; a gentleman who stands second to no 
officer in the American Army; and he is ready to meet the gentleman 
from New York and all other accusers anywhere and everywhere. And, 
sir, when I hear the gentleman from New York rehearse in this house, 
as an impeachment of General Fry, all the details of the recruiting 
frauds in New York, which General Fry used his best energies to repress 
with iron hand, a sense of indignation carries me beyond my personal 
strength and compels me to denounce such a course of proceeding. 



218 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTKOVERSY. 

Mr. Blaine. The word "personal" does not 
occur there. 

Mr. ConMing. The House will observe I did not 
say the word " personal " did occur. But that is not 
here nor there. All gentlemen, all who have the 
appreciation or instincts of gentlemen, see the point 
of this passage. It was the assertion that I had had 
" quarrels " with Provost Marshal Fry, repeating that 
word more than once, and using other forms of expres- 
sion ; and that I had had " quarrels " with General 
Fry in which " quarrels " I had been worsted, in which 
" quarrels " I had been put down by the Secretary of 
War ; in which the Secretary of War had taken sides 
against me. These were the points : first, that there 
had occurred between General Fry and myself " (piar- 
rels," and second, that in those " quarrels " I had been 
worsted, and worsted by the Secretary of War. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, is there any shadow or founda- 
tion for that ? I mean, taking the communication of 
the Provost Marshal General as the only evidence up- 
on the subject. What does he say ? I had stated, as 
the House will remember, before the member from 
Maine injected his statement — I will read that — I had 
previously stated all about having been employed to 
prosecute General Fry's friend and assistant. I said : 

I was employed by the Government to prosecute some of the frauds 
to which I have referred ; and I tried this assistant provost marshal 
general, who had been justified in all the outrages he committed, and 
in all the acts by which millions were stolen from the people of New 
York ; who was jussified by his superior officer down to the time when 
the sentence was published, and afterward, I understand. 

The member from Maine, then, did not mean this 
prosecution by his statement. Now, what does the 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 219 

Provost Mai'slia,! say to give color to tlie statement 
that, independent of this, anything liad taken place 
which will help out the assertion of " (|uaiTels," and 
that I was worsted ? What does he state ? That Cap- 
tain Kichardson, a provost marshal in ray disti'ict, was 
removed. So he was. He was removed without notice 
and without charges. He was removed, as it turned 
out, on the report of Haddock and tlie accusation of a 
man who is himself to be tried in a few weeks for such 
frauds as he charged upon Captain Kichardson. The 
facts were in part made known to me, and, in common 
with some of the first citizens of my district, I repre- 
sented to the War Department and to the President, 
if that was the form of the petition, that this man had 
been removed without notice and on secret informa- 
tion. We thought he should be heard ; that there 
should be an investigation in regard to it. That is 
the beginning and end of all I had to say or to do witlj 
the removal of Captain Joseph P. Richardson. I think 
it will be hardly said that was a quarrel with General 
Fry. 

The next statement is that Captain Peter B. Cran- 
dall was appointed provost marshal of my district and 
was afterward j'emoved. So he was, and I take occa- 
sion to say, in the face of the imputations put upon 
Captain Crandall by General Fry, if ever I looked in. 
to the face of an honest man, P, B, Crandall is honest. 
I take it upon myself to state that a more honest man 
never broke bread than this man who was trodden un- 
der foot by bounty jumpers and thieves because he 
would not submit to them in violation of his duty and 
of tlie law of the land. There is a place where Peter 



220 



OONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



B. Crandall is known, where he has been long known ; 
and fortunately for me, also, in that same place, the 
twenty-first district of New York, inhabited as it is by 
as brave, as generous, as patriotic people as were ever 
represented on this floor, I am known and have been 
known for twenty years. 

The people with whom I live, among whom I ex- 
pect to die, know, better than General Fry can tell 
them, whether the man who dared to pen the libels 
we have heard read deserves to be sustained and com- 
mended, or whether he deserves to be gibbeted at the 
cross-roads of common contempt. 

But, Mr. Speaker, I was saying that Peter B. 
Crandall was appointed provost marshal. He was ap- 
pointed upon the recommendation of the most honored 
and trusted of our citizens without my having any 
part in his selection. I had no part or lot in it. It 
was made entirely by others. The person whom they 
selected was chosen because his integrity was and is 
beyond all question. He was removed after bounty 
brokers had threatened him that if he did not submit 
to their behests he would be removed, and after he 
had defied them to bring the machinery of this great 
Government to bear upon him for doing his duty. He 
was removed at the very time when they predicted his 
downfall, and I say here that he was removed because 
he did his duty and for no other reason under heaven, 
whether General Fry knows it or not. Had he been 
rascal enough to comply with illicit requests, he 
would never have been touched by the hands which 
struck him down. 

I joined with various of the citizens of my dis- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 221 

ti'ict in representing to the Secretary of War that a 
mistake had been made or a wrong had been done in 
the case of this man ; that if anybody was honest he 
was, and that it was doing great violence to the 2^iiblic 
service and to the people of that district to strike 
down a man who had been selected by some of its 
best citizens because he was in point of character 
above reproach. 

That is all I had to do with it. I united with 
others in signing these representations. Was that 
having a personal (_[aarrel with General Fry*? 

One thing more is referred to in connection with 
Captain Crandall. He had taken and held, and perse- 
vered in holding, $20,000 of bonds which were claimed 
of him by a bounty broker. He said they belonged 
to the Government of the United States, because the 
man had deserted for whom these bonds were hy- 
pothecated, and he would never surrender them to the 
claimant until he was compelled to do it by law. He 
was sued, and I wrote several times to the War'De- 
partment recommending the Secretary of War to look 
into the facts himself and see whether the bonds 
might not be held, as I thought they should be held, 
by the Government. This is all I had to do with that. 

The case was subsequently tried. 1 had nothing 
to do with it. The counsel Was a gentleman whose 
name appears in the papers read, a citizen honored in 
every walk of life, and Captain Crandall was sus- 
tained in holding the bonds, the court deciding that he 
did what should have been done, and that he ought 
not to have delivered them up. That is the entire of 
that transaction. 



222 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTKOVERSY. 

Having disposed of these things which General 
Fry recounts, I ask the House to observe that in no 
aspect, by no stretch, do they show tliat I quarrelled 
with General Fry ; at most they only show that 
recommendations made by me to the War Depart- 
ment roused his hostility. 

Having referred to all transactions connecting me 
with him to which he refers, I come now to the one 
single interview" which he says took place between us. 
It was upon the occasion which I referred to when I 
came here in response to a telegram from the Secre- 
tary of War. 

The Provost Marshal General was sent for to 
come into the room of the Assistant Secretary of War 
during that day to give information, and he did come, 
and informed me of various things, among others, 
that Major Haddock was an estimable and honorable 
man ; he denied utterly that there was anything to be 
said aorainst him, althoui^h he had then made the 
recommendation which he parades, and for which he 
takes credit now, that he should be suspended ; that 
he was satisfied Haddock was honest, and would back 
him anywhere. He said further that the people of 
my district, all of them, as he understood it, were cow- 
ards, drunkards, and sneaks ; that that was his infor- 
mation ; that there was not, he believed, an honest 
man in that district, and if one could be found and 
set to discharging the duties of provost marshal, as 
soon as it was known by others, they would imme- 
diately debauch him. 

I was somewhat astounded at language like this, 
but I had no quarrel with General Fry. I was taught 



CONKLING AND BLAlNE-FllY CONTBOVEKSY. 



223 



somewliat early in life that while a man should be 
careful in his associations, he should be choice in his 
fighting ; and having received my impression of this 
man then and previously, I chose to have no con- 
troversy with him. Nor does he pretend that I had 
any. I did not call upon him I neither sought nor 
avoided him. I requested no interview with him. 
There was nothing of the interview except that he 
was sent for to give certain information. He gave his 
information, he made the remarks I stated, and some 
othei' remarks, and retired upon his laurels. 

The fact, then, is precisely this : neither in con- 
versation with General Fry did I ever have any quar- 
rel with him, nor by letter or correspondence did I 
ever have any quarrels with him ; and no way what- 
ever have I ever had a (piarrel, in any definition of 
that term, with this Provost Marshal General. 

As I said the other day, I prosecuted his assistant 
and friend. I knew then that I incurred his ire in 
doing it. I recommended to the War Department 
from time to time such things as I deemed it my duty 
to recommend. This I well know angered him, but I 
believe I never had occasion to make to the Secretary 
of War a recommendation relative to matters coming 
before him, which was not promptly responded to, and 
promptly approved. Unless I have forgotten some- 
thing, I believe that throughout this prosecution I 
never addressed to the Secretary of War a single 
recommendation in regard to it which he did not ap- 
prove, and which did not meet with his sanction. 

The House will see, therefore, with how much truth 
it was that a statement was made here, first that I had 



224 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

had quarrels witli a man whom I never saw but once, 
and with whom I never quarrelled at all; and in the 
second place, that in those quarrels I had been worsted, 
and worsted by the Secretary of War, worsted l)y 
that distinguished officer, whose friendship and confi- 
dence it has always been my privilege to enjoy, and 
•who never on any occasion did toward me anything 
calculated to awaken any feelings but those of friend- 
ship and respect, and who has my thanks for many 
acts of courtesy and kindness. 

But, Mr. Speaker, I have already gone far beyond 
my intention in rising, and I trust that those who 
have listened to me so attentively will pardon some- 
thing to the extraordinary incident which has been 
witnessed, of the head of a bureau, a clerk in the 
War Department, sending here to be read such a pile 
of rubbish as that, a personal assault upon a member 
of this House, under the pretense of vindicating him- 
self in some way or other. 

This officer longs for vindication, not with regard 
to these insignificant matters which pertain to me per- 
sonally, but he longs for vindication with regard to 
those public matters which concern him in his re- 
sponsibility to the people of the country. And I beg 
now to say that, if a committee shall be raised by this 
House to investigate the doings of the Provost Mar- 
shal General's Bureau, I will undertake to make good 
my assertion, that in the western division of New 
York, composing a large portion of that great State, 
this bureau, as it was administered, was one carnival 
of corrupt disorder. I will endeavor to make good 
that statement ; and then the public shall know 



CONKLING AND BLAINE FRi' CONTROVERSY. 



225 



whether the head of the bureau was a man incapable 
of administration — a man incapable of seeing the dif- 
ference between honest men and thieves — or whether 
it was administered by a man who had the capacity 
to do it, and who, but for the want of another quality, 
would have performed its duties well. 

And now, Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague 
from the St, Lawrence district [Mr. Hulhurd\ whose 
position in this House and in the country and in the 
State of New York will be a sufficient guarantee for the 
probity and the ability which will be brought to the 
service — I ask him to move that a committee be ap- 
pointed by the House to investigate the doings of the 
Provost Marshal General's Bureau, and let us see 
wliether a man, however humble he may be, who rises 
here to denounce what he knows to be a public wrong, 
is to be shuffled off by newspaper effects, or effects to 
be produced by sending here to be read such a com- 
munication as lies before us. If this man and his 
trusted agents are innocent he and they should have 
a full and thorough investigation of all the practices 
of which they stand accused. 

I now yield the floor to my colleague for the pur- 
pose I have indicated. 

Mr. Ilulhurd. I presume I shall meet the sense 
of the House when I say that it has probably de- 
voted as much time as it ought to do to this matter 
between my colleague, the gentleman from Maine, 
and the Provost Marshal General. I propose to send 
to the Chair a resolution asking for the appointment 
of a select Committee of five, because I deem the mat- 
ter so very grave that it is due to my colleague, due 



226 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



to the Provost Marshal General, and due to the coun- 
try that the subject shall be further investigated. 
And in view of the complimentary remarks which my 
colleague has made, I am confirmed in the design of 
putting in a disclaimei", which I had intended to do, 
and asking the Chair, if the House shall order tliis 
committee, not to place me upon it, as parliamentary 
courtesy might otherwise seem to require. I have a 
sufficient reason for it in the fact that the House has 
referred for investigation to the Committee on Public 
Expenditures, of which I am chairman, various im- 
portant matters connected with custom houses, and tlie 
internal revenue service at Boston and elsewhere ; and 
I feel that we shall have as much as we can possibly 
do to carry out that resolution. 

Mr. Thayer. I rise to a point of order. I do not 
think the indulgence granted by the House extended 
this far. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Blaine] 
asked leave of the House to have a certain letter read 
fi'om General Fry. Leave was granted, with the tacit 
understanding that the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. ConMing] should have leave to reply. That has 
been done. Now, I do not think this matter should 
take up any further time of the members of this 
House, either in this House or in committees. And 
if I liave the right, I shall object. 

The Speaher. The Chair overrules the point of 
order. The ruling has always been that when the 
House has permitted a personal explanation to be 
made, whatever legitimately or naturally grows out of 
it, in the opinion of the majority of the House, is in 
order. The Chair, of course, has no knowdedge of 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



227 



what the resolution is, except from the remarks of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. HiilhuriV\ ; but he 
supposes it relates to the very question which has 
been brought in controversy between the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. GonMinfj\ and the gentleman 
from Maine [Mr. Blaine]. 

Mr. Blaine. I hope the gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania [Mr. Ihayer'] will withdraw his objection. 

Mr. Thayer. Where a gentleman asks by way of 
personal explanation to have a paper read, with the 
understanding that another gentleman should be al- 
lowed to make a similar personal explanation, is it in 
order for any member of the House to introduce busi- 
ness, by resolution or otherwise, if it relates to the sub- 
ject-matter of the personal explanation ? 

The Speaker. If it relates to that subject it is in 
order. Therefore the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Ilos8\ was in order when he submitted the motion, 
which went to the Committee on Printing under the 
law, that ten thousand extra copies of the communi- 
cation from Greneral Fry be printed for the use of this 
House. 

The resolution of Mr. Hulhurd was read as fol- 
lows : 

RcKolvcd, That a select committee of five members of this House 
lie appointed to investigate the statements and charges made by Hon. 
lioHcoe ConhJing in his place last week against Provost Marshal Gen- 
eral Fry, whether any frauds have been perpetrated in his office in con- 
nection with recruiting service ; also, to examine into the statements 
made by General Fry in his communication to Hon. Mr. Blaine, read 
in the House this day; with power to send for persons and papers. 

Mr. ConMing. I suggest to my colleague [Mr. 
Ilulhnrd] to modify his resolution so as to provide 



228 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

for the investigation of any charges made against Pro- 
vost Marshal General Fiy and his bureau. 

Mr. Hoss. Might it not be well to enlarge the 
powers of the committee so that they can investigate 
whether the gentleman from New York [Mr. Coith- 
ling] has received more pay than he was entitled to 
receive ? 

Mr. ConMing. I should like to have tliat done. 
I hope the committee will report on that whether it 
is embraced in the resolution or not. 

Mr. Hidhurd. That is embraced in the resolu- 
tion now, it being one of the statements contained in 
the letter of General Fry. 

Mr. Ross. That will do, then. 

The question was upon agreeing to the resolution 
of Mr. IMburd. 

Mr. Blaine. I do not know that I have anything 
to say, and I shall not take very long to say it. I do 
not happen to possess tlie volubility of the gentleman 
from the Utica district [Mr. Oonhling]. It took him 
thirty minutes the other day to explain that an alter- 
ation in the reporter's notes for the Globe was no alter- 
ation at all ; and I do not think he convinced the 
House after all. And it has taken him an hour to- 
day to explain that while he and General Fry have 
been at swords' points for a year, there has been no 
difficulty at all between them. He has said that Gen- 
eral Fry is of no consequence, that he is a mere clerk 
in the War Department. Yet he is a very sensitive 
clerk, and when he has been accused of all sorts of 
fraud, he should have a little chance to be heard. 

Now, one single word. Tlie gentleman from 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



229 



New York [Mr. Conhling'] has attempted to pass off 
his appearance in this case as simply the appearance 
of counsel. I want to read again for the information 
of the House the appointment under which the gen- 
tleman from New York appeared as the prosecutor on 
the part of the government. It is as follows : 

WAR DEPARTiMENT, 

Washington City, April 3, 1865. 
Sir : I am instructed by the Secretary of War to authorize you to 
investigate all cases of fraud in the provost marshal' s department of 
the westei-n division of New York, and all misdemeanors connected 
with recruiting. You will fi"om time to time make report to this De- 
partment of the progress of your labors, and will apply for any special 
authority for which you may have occasion. The Judge Advocate Gen- 
eral will be instructed to issue to you an appointment as special judge 
advocate, for the prosecution of any cases that may be brought to trial 
befoi'e a military tribunal. You will also appear in behalf of this De- 
])artment in any cases that it may be deemed more expedient to bring 
before the civil tribunals. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
C. A. Dana, 
Assistant Secretary of War. 

Hon. ROSCOE CONKLING. 

Now, sir, I find in Brightly's Digest, page 821, 
section forty-six, that — 

"No person who holds or ehall hold any office under the Govern- 
ment of the United States whose salary or annual compensation shall 
amount to the sum of $2,500, shall receive compensation for discharg- 
ing the duties of any other office." 

Now, sir, I leave it for the House to decide 
whether the irentleman can c-et off under the tech- 
nical plea that he was not a judge advocate. He 
cannot deny that he discharged the duties of Judge 
advocate under the special commission which I have 
read, and he was paid for the discharge of those duties. 
The case falls under the same law as that of the gentle- 
man from Ohio[Mr. Scliench\ who, V)eing elected a Rep- 



230 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

resentative in Congress while yet a major-general, de- 
clined to receive any pay as a member until he had 
resigned his office in the Army and had taken his seat 
in this House. I have no suggestions to make about 
this, except that I consider the point v^ell taken, and 
that in my view this committee, if ajDpointed, ought 
to investigate the matter. I do not believe that the 
gentleman received the money rightfully, though I 
will say this much of him, if he will permit me, that 
I have no doubt he will restore it if convinced he has 
taken it improperly. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, all I have to say further in 
connection with this matter is, that what I stated the 
other day has, as I conceive, been fully, entirely, and 
emphatically vindicated by the record. I believe I 
have shown the members of this House that I am 
incapable of stating anything here for which I am not 
responsible — not exactly "here or elsewhere" — but 
responsible as a gentleman and as a Kepresentative. 

Mr. Thayer. I move that this resolution be re- 
ferred to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Mr. Conkling. Mr. Speaker, I sought the floor 
again to say this, which possibly I omitted to state 
before : that no commission was ever issued to me by 
the Judge Advocate General. For fear that I omitted 
to state it, I beg leave to say that no commission, 
paper, or authority whatever was ever issued to me 
except the letter of retainer which has been read, em- 
ploying me to act, according to its language, before 
military courts and before other tribunals. 

Mr. Blaine. Mr. Speaker — 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 231 

The speaker. Does the gentleman from New 
York yield to the gentleman from Maine ? 

Mr. ConMing. No, sir. I do not wish to have 
anything to do with the member from Maine, not even 
so much as to yield him the iloor. 

Mr. Blaine. All right. 

Mr. ConMing. I only want to say that the only 
authority under which 1 acted was that which has 
been read, and that I acted as counsel for the United 
States ; and the business of counsel in that particular 
case I tried, as the case was tried before a military 
tribunal, was, of course, of the same general character 
that Avould have been done by a judge advocate, had 
there been a Judge adv^ocate for the court, just as in 
the trial of the conspirators, the distinguished gentle- 
man who sits before me [Mr. Blnghaiii] performed 
the same line of professional employment that a regu- 
lar judge advocate would have performed had he been 
there. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, one thing further : if the mem- 
Ijer from Maine had the least idea how profoundly in- 
different I am to his opinion upon the subject which 
he has been discussing, or upon any other subject 
personal to me, I think he would hardly take the 
trouble to rise here and express his opinion. And as 
it is a matter of entire indifference to me what that 
opinion may be, I certainly will not detain the House 
by discussing the question whether it is well or ill- 
founded, or by noticing what he says. I submit the 
whole matter to the members of the House, making 
as I do an apology (for I feel that it is due to the 
House) for the length of time whicb I have occupied 



232 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

in consequence of being drawn into explanations, orig- 
inally, by an interruption wliich I pronounced the 
other day ungentlemanly and impertinent, and having 
nothing whatever to do with the question. 

Mr. Jioss. I rise to a point of order. I submit 
that the defense of the gentleman from New York 
should be made before this committee and not before 
the House. 

The Speaker. That is scarcely a point of order. 

Mr. Blaine. It is hardly worth while to pursue 
this controversy further ; but still the gentleman from 
New York cannot get off on the technicality which he 
has suggested. He says that a commission never was 
issued to him. I understand him to admit that if a 
commission had been issued to him he could not have 
taken pay for both offices. Now, everyone knows that 
those preliminary authorizations are the things on 
which half the business arising out of the war has 
been done. Men have fought at the head of battal- 
ions and divisions and Army corps without having re- 
ceived their formal commissions. The gentleman was 
just as much bound to respect the law under that 
appointment as though it had been a formal commis- 
sion with the signature of the Secretary of War. 

As to the gentleman's cruel sarcasm, I hope he 
will not be too severe. The contempt of that large- 
minded gentleman is so wilting ; his haughty disdain, 
his grandiloquent swell, his majestic, supereminent, 
overpowering, turkey -gobbler strut has been so crush- 
ing to myself and all the members of this House that 
I know it was an act of the greatest temerity for me 
to venture upon a controversy with him. But, sir, I 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 233 

know who is responsible for all this. I know that 
within the last five weeks, as members of the House 
will recollect, an extra strut has characterized the gen- 
tleman's bearing. It is not his fault. It is the fault 
of another. That gifted and satirical writer, Theo- 
dore Tilton, of the New York Independent, spent some 
weeks recently in this city. His letters published in 
that paper embraced, with many serious statements, a 
little jocose satire, a part of which was the statement 
that the mantle of the late Winter Davis had fallen 
upon the member from New York. The gentleman 
took it seriously, and it has given his strut additional 
pomposity. The resemblance is great. It is striking. 
Hyperion to a satyr, Thersites to Hercules, mud to 
marl)le, dnnghill to diamond, a singed cat to a Bengal 
tiger, a whining puppy to a roaring lion. Shade of the 
uiighty Davis, forgive the almost profanation of that 
jocose satire ! 

The Speaker. The Chair will state at the con- 
clusion of these personal remarks that, as the House 
liad granted unanimous consent for a personal explan- 
ation, and it was presumed, of course, personalities 
would be indulged in, he has refrained from calling- 
gentlemen to order. If any member had called to 
order, the Chair would at once have strictly enforced 
the rule. 

Mr. Coiikling. I ask the gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania [Mr. 21iayer~\ to withdraw the motion to 
refer to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Mr. Scheuch. That committee has now as much 
as it can attend to, and besides that, the gentleman 
from Maine is on that committee. 



234 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



Mr. Blame. I hope tbe gentleman will with- 
draw his motion. I am a member of the Committee 
on Military Affairs and the reference would be wholly 
improper. 

Mr. Henderson. I move to lay the resolution on 
the table. 

The motion was disagreed to. 

The question then recurred on Mr. Thayer'^s mo- 
tion to refer to the Committee on Military Affairs; and 
it was also disagreed to. 

Mr. Conkling demanded the previous question. 

The previous question was seconded and the main 
question ordered ; and under the operation thereof the 
resolution was adopted. 

Mr. Conhling moved to reconsider the vote by 
which the resolution was adopted ; and also moved 
that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 



APPENDIX C. 

Memorial oi A, G. Riddle^ counsel for General Fry^ 
asking that the accompanying papers may be 
treated by the House as evidence in the Coiikling- 
Fry case, on the ground that said papers were 
put in evidence by General Fry before the Com- 
mittee, are competent and material to the issues, 
and are regarded hy the Committee as not in the 
case. 

To the House of Representatives of the Thirty-Ninth 
Congress : 

I respectfully ask permission to submit the following : 

I acted as counsel for General James B. Fry in the recent investiga- 
tion before a Committee of the House. It appears by the Report of that 
Committee that two letters appearing in my argument were not re- 
garded as in evidence in the case, and are of doubtful authenticity. It 
will be found that these letters are most material to a right understand- 
ing of that part of the case, and that they are two of a scries of some 
ticenty -three papers, all offered, as will be shown in evidence, on the part 
of General Fry, and all competent and important evidence. And it is 
for the purpose of relieving the letters referred to from doubt, and also 
to place in the possession of the House the other papers referred to (as 
well as to relieve myself of incidental imputation), that this memorial 
and the accompanying papers are submitted to the House. It will be 
found difficult, it is submitted, to correctly judge of material portions of 
the Conliing-Fry case in the absence of these papers, as they contain 
the whole of General Fry' s evidence on the points they refer to. 

I ask attention to the letter of General Jeffries, herewith submitted, 
and marked "A," which, I believe, truly discloses the facts in refer- 
ence to the offering and receiving the papers in evidence before the 
Committee. 

I never heard a doubt of the authenticity of either of these letters, 
or that the originals of either had been called for, until I saw the report 
of your Committee, nor did I ever hear a question raised as to whether 
these papers, or any of them, were in evidence, until, as I think, the 
Utb or 12th of Julv, instant, 

^35 



236 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTKOVERSY. 

From the day of their being offered, as stated by General Jcffric-s, 
until the 0th instant, they all remained among the papers in the case, 
and were returned to General Fry by Mr. Boyer, of the court, as I am 
informed, pursuant to the letter of General Fry of that date, addressed 
to Mr. Boyer, and herewith submitted, marked " B." 

The letters contained in my ' ' reply " were among those so returned, 
copies of all of which are herewith submitted. 

For convenience, I have arranged these in three groups, and have 
endorsed on the back of each group the point to which they refer, and 
the use I made of them. 

It will at once be seen that groups one and two comprise the entire 
total of every item of proof offered by General Fry on the important 
matter of the Hoboken raid, and the court's record must show that he 
gave no proof on this point if these are not in evidence. 

I was not present when General Jeffries offered any of these papers 
in evidence. I saw them several times tied up in a bundle, among the 
other papers, and I was twice present when General Jeffries proposed 
to substitute certified copies of the papers for the originals, and I know 
that nobody at either time pretended that they were not in evidence. 

The copies so offered are the same heretofore submitted, with the 
exception of the copies of the two contained in my reply, — those went 
to the Government Printer, and will be found with the manuscript. 

No reporter was present at my reply to Mr. C, and, I think, no 
person except the Committee, Mr. C. and myself. It was made after 
ten in the evening, after a protracted and exhausting session. The part 
of it in reference to the Hoboken raid was pursuant to a well-settled 
mental programme. I had long been familiar with that part of the 
case. I think the effect not a happy one. I was exhausted, and was 
conscious of not having the attention of the Committee. I held the 
copies referred to in my hand. I read none of them, but named them, 
and urged the Committee to read them, I supposed they had been 
read when put in evidence. 

When I referred to the Allen memorial, Mr. Cooh asked me if there 
was such a paper in evidence, and I told him there was, and to that no 
reply was made. At the conclusion, I said to the Committee that I 
must have liberty to collate the papers, make correct copies, and, per- 
haps, print some of them — to which I heard no objection. 

At my earliest leisure I wrote a report of my remarks, following 
my original programme as near as I could remember to have followed 
it in the oral argument. I omitted much that I said. I could not re- 
call the language used ; but I am certain that I did not introduce into it 
any new matter, or new views or arguments. 

This report I had accurately copied, except the two letters, and for 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



237 



those the certified copies, above referred to, were used. This copy, 
with these certified copies included, I my sell placed in the hands of the 
Committee, and have never seen it since. Hearing a day or two later 
that that copy had been sent to the Public Printer by the court, and de- 
siring to recall the attention of the court to the argument of my reply, 
I sent the report made by myself (the copies of the two letters being 
with the Committee's copy) to Mr. Cool, to whom I understood the 
Committee had committed the labor of writing the report. With it, I 
sent a note, informing Mr. C. that he would find the originals of the 
two letters among the papers in the case. 

On the 10th instant, Mr. Cook informed me that he had not found 
the letters. I went to the Committee room, and was told that they had 
been returned to General F., and, on inquiry, I was told that he was 
absent with the papers in New York City. 

One or two days following, I, for the first time, heard, and from 
Mr. Bayer, that the Committee had no recollection that these letters 
were in proof, nor that I had referred to them in my summing up. I 
immediately addressed a note to the Chairman, and subsequently for- 
warded a note of General Jeffrie.^ to him. I was never called upon, nor 
was anybody else, on the part of General Fry, to furnish these letters or 
copies, or to make any explanation in reference to them, nor did I know 
what was the view of the Committee till I saw their report. My argu- 
ment and reply were printed by the Committee, as I suppose. The only 
thing I had to do with that was to correct the proof. Nobody, on be- 
half of General Fry, had anything to do with it. The Superintendent 
of Public Pi-inting told me I could have some extra copies upon paying 
for them, and I ordered 100 copies. I applied to the Chairman of the 
Committee to know whether I might then distribute a part of them. He 
told me he could see no impropriety in it. On the next day I sent 
25 copies to the House, — one for each of the Committee, one for 
the counsel of Mr. Conirimj, some to my acquaintances of the Ohio 
delegation, and to others, — the friends of both parties. I also forwarded 
one to the Tribune, and one to the Utica Herald. 

I respectfully aek that this memorial may be printed for the infor- 
mation of the House, and that the evidence herewith submitted may 
be received and treated as evidence in the case, to the end that if, 
through the carelessness or inattention of his counsel. General Fri/ has 
failed to have this evidence received and considered by the Committee, 
that he may have the benefit of it on the final consideration of the case 
by the House. 

Respectfully submitted. 
(Signed) A. G. RIDDLE. 

Washington, July 17, 186G. 



238 



OONKLING AND BLAINE-FllY CONTROVERSY. 



''A." LETTER OF GENERAL JEFFRIES. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL'S BUREAU, 

Washington, D.G., July 16, 1866. 

Hon. a. G. Riddle, Sii': — As I have already stated to you in a 
former note, there is no question as to the fact that the two letters set 
out in your printed argument were offered in evidence by me as coun- 
sel for General Fry, at the same time the other letters on the Hoboken 
subject were submitted to the Committee, and they were received in 
evidence in the same manner as the other exhibits relating to that 
subject. 

One of these letters, viz. : the one dated March 16, and another 
letter, contained certain memoranda, in the hand-writing of one of the 
clerks in this Bureau, and I remarked to the Committee that I desired 
to make certain proof as to that memorandum, which would require 
time to bring the witness from the oflSce, when it was remarked that I 
need not delay on that account, and so it went in with the others. It 
will be remembered that the exhibits were offered seriatim, until a cer- 
tain number had been reached — Mr. Conhliiuj stating his objections from 
time to time as each paper was offered, until at length Mr. Warner de- 
cided to admit the whole of the "bundle," subject to such objection as 
might be deemed pertinent, and in that bundle was the letter of the 
29th, which you set out in argument. 

There is no question as to the genuineness of these letters, as the rec- 
ords of this office and the clerks will testify. 

The " bundle " of exhibits in the " Hoboken case " comprised the 
entire correspondence on that subject, and each paper was numbered, 
the series numbering from one to twenty-three, I think. The letter in 
dispute, of the IGth, is numbered thirteen. (I have it now before me.) 
The other of the 29th was left by General Fry in New York, where he 
was called as a witness on a matter connected with this subject, since 
the close of the testimony in the case. 

If these letters are not in evidence, it is because they have been 
ruled out. 

If this statement is questioned, I am able to prove its correctness by 
persons who were present, and distinctly remember the whole trans- 
action. 

When the papers were returned again to General Fry by the 
Committee, these two letters were still in the "bundle." This fact I 
learn from General Fry, and from the circumstance that one of them is 
still in the " bundle." 

But, aside from this, to show that I offered these letters in evidence, 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 239 

the clerks of this office will testify that they made copies of all the cor- 
respondence for General Fry. These copies I presented to the Commit- 
tee, and re(iuested permission to withdraw the originals, because it was 
necessary for General Fry to take them with him to New York. Mr. 
ConMing objected, and the Committee ruled that they would retain them 
until they had read the evidence and heard the argument, and then de- 
liver them to General Fry. 

These copies were duly certified in the same manner as other ad- 
mitted exhibits, so that the letters were first offered and admitted, and 
again certified copies were offered. 

(Signed) N. L. JEFFRIES, 

Counsel for General Fry. 

Note. — For action of House upon this petition, see Appendix D. 



APPENDIX D. 

PKOVOST MAKSIIAL GENEKAl's BUREAU. 

Mr. Sliellaharger. I now call up the report of 
the Select Committee appointed April 30, 1866, to in- 
vestigate tlie statements and charges made by Hon. 
Roscoe ConMing, in his place, against Provost Marshal 
General Fry and his Bureau — whether an}^ frauds 
have been perpetrated in his office in connection with 
the recruiting service ; also to examine into tlie state- 
ments made by General Fry in his communication to 
Hon. Mr. Blaine^ read in the House. 

Mr. Ilotchhiss. I ask for the reading of the re- 
port. 

Mr. Johnson. I desire to inquire whether there 
is any minority report in this case, or an objecting re- 
port of any kind. 

Mr. Shellahavger. There is no minority report. 
This is the unanimous re])ort of the Committee. 

Mr. Jolivson. Unless some one controverts the re- 
port, I do not think the time should be taken up with 
reading an elaborate report. 

Mr. IlotcJihiss. I asked for the reading as I sup- 
posed it was a matter of right. 

The Speaker. Any member has the right to have 
the report read. 

The Clerk read the report as follows : 
240 



(50NKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

HON. ROSCOE CONKLTNG AND PROVOST MARSHAL 
GENERAL FRY 



241 



July 14, 18G6. — Ordered to be printed. 

Mr. SiiELLABARGER from the Select Committee to investigate this case, 
made the following 

REPORT. 

Tlie Select Committee, appointed April SO, 1860, to invistigate the state- 
ments and charges made hy Hon. Rosroe Gonliing, in his j>lace, against 
Provost Marshal General Fry and his bureau — lohether any frauds 
have been perpetrated in his office in connexion with the recruiting ser- 
vice; also to examine into the statements made by General Fry in his 
communication to lion. Mr. Blaine, read in the House, having com- 
pleted their labors as to one branch of their investigation, submit the 
following report: 

When your committee was about to enter upon the performance of 
the duties enjoined upon it by the orders of the House, it became appar- 
ent that a full investigation of all matters embraced within the scope of 
its authority could not be completed during the present session of Con- 
gress. In view of the time, labor, and public expense necessarily in- 
volved in the performance of the work, your committee had under con- 
sideration the propriety of making a preliminary report to the House, 
setting forth the magnitude of the task assigned to it, and asking for 
further instructions in the premises. But in consideration of the fact 
that the character of a member of the House of Representatives had 
been publicly assailed with serious charges in a letter emanating from 
the head of an important bureau of the government, addressed to an- 
other member of the House of Representatives and by him caused to be 
read to the House, and thus made a part of the published and perma- 
nent record of its proceedings, we deemed that it was the privilege of 
the member thus gravely charged, and due also to the House itself, that 
your committee should proceed without delay to the investigation of at 
least that branch of the case which relates to the charges preferred by 
Provost Marshal General Fry against the Hon. Roscoe Conkling. Your 
committee did this the more readily, as the member thus charged 
pleaded and insisted upon his privilege to have an early investigation of 
that branch of the case, and no objection was interposed by any party 
to its separate consideration and prompt decision, leaving the remaining 
branch of the investigation relating to the conduct of the bureau of the 
Provost Marshal General to the future action of the committee. 

Your committee, therefore, as will appear in the journal of its pro- 



242 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

ceedings, have thus far confined their investigation to the charges 
against Mr. Conkling contained in the letter of General Fry to Mr. 
Blaine, and excluded all testimony bearing upon the conduct of Gen- 
eral Fry as Provost Marshal General, except so far as that was deemed 
necessary to a full investigation of the charges against Mr. Conkling. 
The testimony touching the Hoboken credits and the disposal of the 
$54,000 bounty money arising therefrom was admitted to show, as was 
alleged, a settled purpose on the part of General Fry to in jure Mr. Conk- 
ling, dating back long anterior to the Blaine letter, and evinced by his 
alleged attempt to procure by a corrupt bargain testimony to be used 
against Mr. Conkling in relation to certain alleged frauds in the Utica 
district of the State of New York. Your committee deemed it a legiti- 
mate subject of inquiry to investigate to that extent the motive of Gen- 
eral Fry, and its connexion, if any, with the animus which prompted 
the letter to Mr. Blaine. Both parties were, therefore, allowed full op- 
portunity to introduce testimony relating to that point. 

The first statement of the letter of General Fry to be investigated 
under the rule adopted by the committee is as follows : 

" In the summer of 1803 Mr. Conkling made a case for himself by 
telegraphing to the War Department that the provost marshal of his dis- 
trict required legal advice, which he was hereupon [thcreiqwn] em- 
powered to give. ' ' 

The committee understand this charge to be, that Mr. Conkling se- 
cured his own employment professionally, by the department, by tele- 
graphing that the provost marshal of his district required legal advice, 
and that his motive and object in transmitting the despatch was to se- 
cure such employment. Unless this is the meaning of the words of the 
letter, there is no significance at all to be attached to them, in the con- 
nexion in which they are used. The evidence shows that, in the latter 
part of July, 1803, a man named Hobson was arrested in the 21st 
district of New York as a deserter. A writ of habeas corims was issued 
by Judge Bacon, justice of the Supreme Court, and placed in the hands 
of the sherifi" of Oneida county. A return was made by the officer hav- 
ing the deserter in custody, which return showed that the man was 
held by the military authorities as a deserter from the military service 
of the United States. This return was adjudged insufficient by the 
judge who issued the writ, and a writ of attachment was ordered and 
issued against the officer for declining to bring the deserter before the 
judge, in obedience to the writ of habeas corpus. A direct conflict had 
arisen between the military authorities of the United States and the 
authorities of the State of New York, in reference to which very great 
excitement had arisen among the people of the district. The district 
attorney was absent. Mr. Kernan, the representative from that dis- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



243 



trict, had been engaged as counsel against the government, and the dan- 
ger of a collision between the national and State authorities was imme- 
diate and palpable. In the emergency, and acting at the request and 
upon advice of eminent citizens of the district, Mr. Conkling sent to 
the Secretary of War the following despatch : 

" In the absence of all of us who could aid him professionally, the 
provost marshal here was served with a habeas corpus to produce a de- 
serter ; he obeyed the order not to produce, and so returned. The 
judge held this insuflacient, and issued attachment. He telegraphed the 
district attorney and his assistant. They are absent and engaged. 
What shall we do? R. CONKLING." 

It will be observed that the despatch does not inform the Secretary 
of War that the provost marshal required legal advice, but was a suc- 
cinct statement of the actual state of facts, and a request that the Sec- 
retary should direct what should be done in an emergency which excited 
the apprehensions of the friends of the government. In the opinion of 
the committee, Mr. Conkling did only what he was fully justified in do- 
ing in this matter, and there is no evidence tending, however remotely, 
to show that in sending the despatch he was influenced by any merely 
personal motive. 

The second statement of General Fry's letter which haselaimed the 
attention of the committee is as follows : 

"In April, 1865, Mr. Charles A. Dana, then Assistant Secretary of 
War, without notifying me, had Mr. Conkling appointed to investigate 
all frauds in enlistments in western New York, with the stipulation that 
he should be commissioned judge advocate for the prosecution of any 
cases brought to trial, and he was appointed to prosecute, before a gen- 
eral court-martial. Major J. A. Haddock. Mr. Dana vested him, by 
several orders issued in the name of the Secretary of War, without 
the sanction of Mr. Stanton, with the most extraordinary powers. 
Among these was the right to examine the despatches in all [the\ tele- 
graph offices in the western division of New York, which enabled a 
violation of the sanctity of personal and business correspondence." 

In another part of the letter Mr. Dana is spoken of as the friend of 
Mr. Conkling ; and the committee understand the imputation of this 
portion of the letter to be, that Mr. Dana, of his own motion, without 
notice to General Fry, and without the sanction of the Secretary of 
War, and by some management or understanding between Mr. Dana 
and Mr. Conkling, appointed Mr. Conkling to investigate frauds in en- 
listments in western New York, and vested him with extraordinary 
powers. 

It has been proved before the committee by the testimony of the 



244 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

Secretary of War that about the 30th of March, 18G5, the Secretary of 
War directed Mr. Dana to telegraph to Mr. Conkling to come to Wash- 
ington, to consult with the Secretary in relation to certain frauds in 
western New York, in regard to which a report had been made by Major 
Luddington, [Ludington] an inspecting oflficer, who had been sent to 
New York for the purpose of investigation. The Secretary of War testifies 
that he had himself determined that Mr. Conkling should take charge 
of the investigation of those frauds, if he would do so, and for that pur- 
p03e directed the despatch to be sent to Mr. Conkling requesting him to 
come to Washington. On the 2d of April Mr. Conkling came to Wash- 
ington, and had an interview with the Secretary of War, who then 
urged him to take charge of the investigation referred to, stating, at 
the same time, that " he considered a diligent and rigorous investiga- 
tion as absolutely necessary to the safety of the country ; that we were 
at that time engaged in the midst of a draft ; General Grant had com- 
menced his movements ; and that everything depended upon keeping 
the army up, and the means of keeping the army up was the diligent 
and vigorous recruiting which was then going on." That Mr. Conk- 
ling expressed himself very reluctant to engage in it. The Secretary 
of War expressed to Mr. Conkling an unqualified opinion that there 
was nothing in the service which he asked of him incompatible with 
his position as a member of Congress elect, and gave him reasons at 
length for that opinion, and insisted that it was as much the duty of 
Mr. Conkling to use his legal knowledge in aid of the government in 
carrying on the war as to shoulder a musket to drive the enemy out of 
this department, and that Mr. Conkling was not at liberty to deny the 
Secretary of War the benefit of his services. 

The Secretary of War also testified that, if there was anything 
wrong in Mr. Conkling's taking that duty at that time, the wrong 
rests on the shoulders of the Secretary of War, and not on Mr. Conk- 
ling's. 

That the Secretary is the person that ought to be responsible, in the 
public judgment, for forcing upon Mr. Conkling what the Secretary 
regarded as a public duty ; and that he had no other reason for forcing 
it upon Mr. Conkling than the facts that he thought it a vital duty, and 
knew Mr. Conkling to be competent to perform it. 

The Secretary of War directed Mr. Dana to prepare the papers for 
Mr. Conkling, in case he should conclude to render the services requir- 
ed, and the papers prepared and given to Mr. Conkling are in conform- 
ity with the instructions of the Secretary of War. Mr. Conkling, after 
consultation with the Judge Advocate General, whose views corre- 
sponded with those of the Secretary, undertook to render the services 
required. 



UONKLING AND BLAINE FRY CONTROVERSY. 2-1:5 

It is clear, from the evidence, that, so far from Mr. Conkling's ap- 
pointment having been made by Mr. Dana, and the povpers with which 
he was clothed having been vested in him by Mr. Dana, the appoint- 
ment and the powers accompanying it were conferred upon Mr. Conk- 
ling by the Secretary of War himself ; that Mr. Dana had nothing to 
do with the matter except to prepare the papers under the specific di- 
rection of the Secretary. These powers were specified in the following 
papers : 

War Department, 

Washington City, April 3, 1865. 

Sir : I am instructed by the Secretary of War to authorize you to in- 
vestigate all cases of fraud in the provost marshal' s office [t/epfo'tmenf] of 
the western division of New York, and all misdemeanors connected with 
recruiting. You will, from time to time, make report to the [fJiis] de- 
partment of the progress of your labors, and will apply for any special 
authority for which you may have occasion. The Judge Advocate Gen- 
eral will be instructed to issue to you an appointment as special judge 
advocate for the prosecution of any cases ihat may be brought to trial 
before a military tribunal. You will also appear in behalf of this de- 
partment in any cases that it may be deemed more expedient to bring 
before the civil tribunals. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

C. A. DANA, 
Assistant Secretary of War. 

Hon. ROSCOE CONKLING, 



War Department, 

W'lshington City, Ainil 3, 1805. 
Hon. Roscoe Conkling having been appointed by the Secretary of 
War to investigate transactions connected with recruiting in the west- 
ern division of New York, all telegraph companies and operators are 
respectfully requested to afford him access to any despatches which he 
may recjuire, for the purpose of detecting frauds, and bringing criminals 
to trial. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

C. A. DANA, 
Assistant Secretary of War. 



War Department, 

Washington City, April 3, 1865. 
Hon. Roscoe Conkling having been appointed by the Secretary of 
War to investigate transactions connected with recruiting in the western 
division of New York, all provost marshals and other military officers 
are hereby directed to give him free access to all their official records 
and correspondence, and to furnish him certified copies of any papers 
that he may require. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

C. A. DANA, 
Assistunt Secretary of War. 

The committee have failed to discover that any extraordinary 
powers were conferred upon Mr. Conkling without the sanction of the 



'J46 GONKLING AND BLAINEFUY CONTROVERSY. 

Secretary of War, which enabled him to violate the sanctity of per- 
sonal business correspondence. It is certain that no complaint that 
the sanctity of any personal business correspondence has been violated 
by Mr. Conkling under that authority has been brought to the notice 
of the committee. Both the Secretary of War and Mr. Dana testify 
that the powers given to Mr. Conkling were those usually given in such 
cases, and in regard to this paper the Secretary of War testifies: " I 
do not understand the paper as giving him any right to make use of 
private despatches any way, but to be a request only to telegraph of- 
ficers to afford him facilities for detecting frauds and bringing crim- 
inals to trial. The other, as to the provost marshals giving him free ac- 
cess to their records and correspondence, is a general authority which 
is given in all such cases, and Is necessary for any person engaged in 
these investigations to exercise.' 

It appears from the testimony of Mr. Dana that the appointment 
of Mr. Conkling was not made without notifying General Fry, butthat 
on the 3d of April, the day of the date of the papers which were given 
to Mr. Conkling. and the day on which he signified his willingness to 
undertake the duty, General Fry was informed by Mr. Dana that the 
Secretary of War had employed Mr. Conkling for this purpose, and had 
directed that he, Mr. Fry, should put into Mr. Conkling' s hands at once 
all the papers relating to Major Haddock. 

The statement of General Fry's letter in relation to the sums re- 
ceived, or reported to have been received, by Mr. Conkling, being 
adverted to in another jjlace, the next allegation of the letter is as 
follows : 

' ' But, as hereafter shown, he was as zealous in preventing pros- 
ecutions at Utica as he was in making them at Elniira, and the main 
ground of difficulty between Mr. Conkling and myself has been that I 
wanted exposure at both places, while he wanted concealment at one. ' ' 

In investigating the charge contained in this paragraph, the com- 
mittee dii'ected their inquiries first to the question whether Mr. Conk- 
ling had been zealous to prevent prosecution of persons charged with 
fraud at Utica in the manner particularly specified in the letter, or in 
any other manner ; and, second, whether Mr. Conkling had manifested 
any desire that any frauds upon the government at Utica should be 
concealed, or any inquiry in relation to them suppressed. 

In considering these questions it became proper for the committee 
to determine the extent of the duty which had been imposed upon Mr. 
Conkling by the Secretary of War, and upon this question the under- 
standing of the Secretary of War, by whom the appointment was made, 
is thus given in his testimony: " I do not think that Mr. Conkling 
was authorized or directed to institute prosecutions against any one dis- 



CONKLINrt AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVEUSY. 



247 



coniu'cted with Major Hadflock. Major Haddock was the chief of the 
department; it was alleged that he had accomplices; that these frauds 
were the I'esiilt of combinations and conspiracies, official and non official , 
for the purpose of plundering the public treasury; to confine the power 
simply to Major Haddock's case would have been ineffectually narrow. 
The power was therefore given him to investigate everything in con- 
nexion with that transaction, and it would have been unwise for the 
government to limit it or confine the investigation within a narrower 
compass than is expressed in the papers But the assignment of Mr. 
Conkling on the court-martial determines the quesHon, the order de- 
•^ailing the court and assigning him to act as judge advocate in the trial 
of Major Haddock and no other person. All that Mr. Conkling could 
do in respect to other persons than Major Haddock would be to prefer 
charges or proofs agairst others besides Major Haddock, and then it 
would require the order of the department detailing this or some other 
court of which he might or might not be a member as judge ad\ocate, 
for the purpose of bringing those cases to trial. Mr. Conkling could 
put nob(>dy on trial, except by the special order of the department." 

No evidence was given before the committee tending to show any 
direct effort on the part of Mr. Conkling to prevent the prosecution of 
any one in Utica or elsewhere, and the inquiry was therefore narrowed 
to the question *\-hethpr he had in any manner neglected to communi- 
cate to the department information which he ought to have given in 
relation to frauds upon the government, aiid especially whether he had 
neglected to do so bpcause such information would have been used 
against particular individuals or persons living in Utica district. In 
the inquiry ujjon this point the testimony was confined, by the ruling 
of the committee, to the single fact whether frauds existed which had 
come to tlie knowledge of Mr Conkling, and which he had not made 
known to the department. Evidence offered in relation to alleged 
frauds in the Utica district, of which Mr. Conkling was not shown to 
have had any knowleJge was not received by the committee; nor was 
evidence received in relation to matters concerning which full infor- 
mation had been given to the government; the committee believing 
tliat it was the duty of the War Department to determine what prose- 
cutions should be instituted when the facts were within the knowledge of 
the department, and that Mr. Conkling discharged his whole duty in 
that behalf when the information which he had himself received had 
been communicated to the War Department. 

It is true that considerable evidence has been incorporated in the 
record which would have been excluded by a strict adherence to the 
rule adopleil by the committee. This has arisen from the fact that 
much of the testimony was taken while the House was in session, anil 



248 



CONKLING AND BLAINB-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



by diffeieut members of the committee, uut having leave to sit during 
the sessions of the House and it was consequently impossible for the 
members of the committee taking the testimony to understand the pre- 
cise connexion of the testimony offered with tliat which had been taken 
by some other member of the committee, and it was deemed best to be 
more careful not to exclude any evidence from the record that might 
possibly be pertinent to the subject-matter of inquiry, than not to 
admit any that might be wholly irrelevant. 

The specifications given in Genei'al Fry's letter, vmder the charge 
that "as hereafter shown, Mr. Conkling was as zealous in preventing 
prosecutions atUticaashe was in making them at Elmira, " are as fol- 
lows : 

' ' That Mr. Conkling complained both to the President and to the 
War Department of the action of General Fry in the removal of Cap- 
tain Richardson (the first provost marshal of Mr. Conkling" s district), 
upon a report of Judge Advocate Turner that the proofs in his case dis- 
closed a reckless persistence in fraudulent practices. 

''The second issue was as to the testimony [redorhu/] of Captain 
Crandall, after I had secured his removal from duty on the recommen- 
dation of Major Luddington, [Lydiiu/ton] who thoroughly inspected the 
district, and reported that, though not legally guilty, he had morally 
perpetrated [a] most glaring, [and] inexcusable fraud on the govern- 
ment, [he vx(.s sioorn to serve] and that he had quieted his conscience by 
casuistry and regulated his actions by the counsel of unscrupulous legal 
advisers. Mr. Conkling failed to get Captain Crandall restored. 

" The third issue was as to the govermnenfs employing counsel 
to defend Captain Crandall after he had been relieved, and had carried 
with him, in violation of the orders of the department, some twenty 
thousand dollars local bounty deposited with him in behalf of recruits, 
and in regard to which he got into litigation. In this Mr. Conkling 
failed." 

The words ' ' as hereafter shown, ' ' as the3=' appear in connexion in 
General Fry's letter, that Mr. Conkling was as zealous "in preventing 
prosecutions at Utica as in making them at Elmira," must refer to the 
three specifications above given, because, unless shown in one or the 
other of those specifications, it is not shown at all in General Fry's 
letter that Mr. Conkling was zealous "in preventing prosecutions at 
Utica," or that " he wanted concealment there." It was contended 
before the committee that these words, " as hereafter shown," limited 
the charges against Mr. Conkling to the three specifications above given. 
If this be so, the specifications signally fail to bear out the charge 
made. In the case of Captain Richardson it was not the duty of Mr. 
Conkling to have reported his case to the government, for the reason 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FUY CONTROVERSY. 2-l:'.> 

thai the government already had a full I'eport of the case from Judge 
Advocate Turner, and it was for the department, and not Mr. Conk- 
ling, to determine what action should be taken thereon, and because, 
several months before the appointment of Mr, Conkling to investigate 
frauds in the western division of New York, this matter had been 
placed in the hands of William A. Dart, the United States district 
attoi'ney, who had charge of the case when Mr, Conkling received his 
api^ointment. Mr, Conkling manifestly did not attempt to prevent the 
prosecution of Caj^tain Richardson by neglecting to furnish information 
which was within his knowledge and not within the knowledge of the 
government, nor by neglecting to institute proceedings against Rich- 
ardson, because that was a matter with which he had nothing to do. 
Did he attempt to prevent prosecutions at Ulica by complaining of the 
action of General Fry in the removal of Captain Richardson? The 
facts are as follows : 

December 30, 1864, Mr, Conkling addressed a letter to the President 
of the United States, in which the fact of the removal of Captain Rich- 
ardson is stated, and the belief cif the writer that it had been accom- 
plished by the efforts of Major Haddock, in whom the loyal people had 
no confidence, and who was suspected of fraudulent practices (which 
suspicion was afterwards sworn to have been well founded). The let- 
ter refers to a rumor that charges had been made against Captain Rich- 
ardson, based, as the letter stales, upon affidavits prepared by those 
whose character does not raise a presumption in favor of their motives. 
And then the writer says : "Of course I have nothing to say as to the 
truth of the charges, if there are charges, as 1 do not know what they 
are. I ought, however, to say that in common with others I have kept 
a pretty close watch upon Captain Richardson, and that I have never 
discovered any corrupt practices in him. But the point I wish to sub- 
mit is his being thus summarily disgraced without knowledge of the 
ground and without his being heard. ' ' The letter states that the super- 
visors through whom the men have been raised had signed and lodged 
with tlie writer an earnest protest against the proceedings. No com- 
plaint is made in the Utter against General Fry by name, or by special 
reference. The letter referred to was written by Mr. Conkling, and 
the concurrence of the following eminent citizens of that district was 
indorsed thereon: Hon. W, J. Bacon, Ellis H. Roberts, Hon. Ward 
Hunt, Erastus Clark. T, R. Walker, ^and C. H. Hopkins. The com- 
mittee have failed to discover any evidence of any unworthy or im- 
proper motive on the part of Mr. Conkling, or the other gentlemen con- 
curring in that letter, nor can thf committee pei'ceive how it is possible 
to imagine that the letter affords any indication, however remote, that 
Mr. Conkling was zealous to prevent the pi-osecution of Mr, Richardson, 



250 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

or desirous of concealing his acts from scrutiny. Indeed, the main ob- 
ject of the letter seems to have been to ask an investigation. 

In relation to Captain Crandall no concealment was possible, for the 
reason that a full report had been made by Major Luddington[A;/(Z/7ij/^o;/] 
before Mr Conkling is shown to have had anything to say or do in refer- 
ence to him ; and surely Mr. Conkling could not be in fault for not prose- 
cuting him, when, as stated in Major Luddington's[i;»?iH,c//oH] report, he 
had incurred no legal guilt ; consequently it is not shown by any evidence 
in relation to Captain Crandall that Mr. Conkling was zealous in prevent- 
ing prosecutions at Utica, or desired concealment of any frauds there. 
And here the committee might leave this matter of Captain Crandall, 
but it is considered but just to Mr. Conkling that a true statement of 
his connexion with matters relating to Captain Crandall should be given. 
It appears from the evidence of Hon. Ward Hunt that Mr. Crandall 
was selected and recommended as a proper person to su.cceed Captain 
Richardson by said Hunt, Judge Bacon, and other citizens of the dis- 
trict; that Mr. Conkling refused to have anything to do with the selec- 
tion or designation of any individual for that position. Judge Hunt 
testifies that " Mr. Crandall was selected as being an eminently honest 
and upright man, and a man of the best reputation and character. It 
was believed by every one that if there was to be found in the county 
one honest man, he was the one, and that the judgiuent of the citizens 
of Oneida county is unanimous as to the integrity of Captain Crandall." 
Tliis statement is corroborated by several other witnesses. No evidence 
was offered before the committee showing, or tending to show, that Mr. 
Crandall had been guilty of any fraud or dishonest practice which ever 
came to the knowledge of Mr. Conkling; and the inquiry in this partic- 
ular was confined to that limit. The committee are of opinion that tlie 
evidence does not show that Mr. Conkling was guilty of any impropriety 
in recommending the restoration of Captain Crandall after Major Lud- 
dington's {LmUivjton'] report, but on the contrary, it does appear tliat his 
action was limited to a simple expression of opinion, which opinion was 
concurred in very generally by the citizens of that district, and suiaported 
by the report of the detective selected by General Fry to investigate the 
acts of Captain Crandall. It has not been shown to the committee that 
General Fry, or any other person believed that Captain Crandall should 
have been prosecuted. Mr. Dana testifies to the statement of General 
Fry that he knew nothing which.Captain Crandall had done or omitted 
which he should not have done or omitted. General Fry, in his letter 
of November 6, published in the Globe, says that Captain Crandall was 
suspended from duty for refusing to turn over the $20,000 bonds to a 
disbursing officer, an act for which he deserved no t;ensure in the opinion 
of the conunittee, for the reasons herein stated. The letter of General Fry 



CONKLINC AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 251 

t(i Mr. Blaine .states that Captain Crandall was discharged on the recom- 
mendation of Major Luddington, [/juliiif/foii] who reported that, though 
not legally guilty, he had morally perpetrated a most glaring.' and inex- 
cusable fraud on the government he was sworn to serve. The committee 
have not found in the evidence before them any evidence of such moral 
fraud on the part of Captain Crandall, and certainly no facts had been 
shown to be within the knowledge of Mr. Conkling, in relation to Cap- 
tain Crandall, which would have rendered it improper for Mr. Conkling 
to have recommended his restoration to office. 

An attempt was made to show, by the testimony of Patrick J. Kin- 
ney, that when Aaron Richardson was arrested at Utica he was set at 
liberty by the officers having him in custody, after an interview which 
lie had at his own request with Mr. Conkling. In relation to this mat- 
ter it is only necessary to say that Mr. Richardson had made important 
disclosures to the government; was a witness in the prosecvition of Had- 
dock; that the acts of Mr. Conkling in relation to the witness were 
fully known to and approved by the Secretary of War. 

In relation to the third specification above stated, the facts are as 
follows: 

Captain Crandall required Aaron Richardson, a bounty broker, to 
deposit security with him that certain men furnished by said Richard- 
son, and enlisted, should go forward to the front and be there receipted, 
and the sum of $20,000 in bonds of Oneida county was deposited as such 
security. Some men that were furnished by Richardson refused to 
receive any local bounty whatever, insisting that all they claimed or 
desired was the bounty that government paid others ; they took fifty 
dollars and would take no more. In all of those cases the right of the 
recruit to receive the local bounty was fully explained to him by Cap- 
tain Crandall. But as a precaution against desertion, Captain Crandall 
required Richardson to deposit five hundred and fifty dollars for each 
man, as security for receipt of the recruit at the general rendezvous. 

After depositing the bonds, Richardson claimed that Provost Marshal 
Crandall had no legal authority to require security for the appearance 
of the recruit, and demanded that the bonds should be refunded to him. 
Of the men furnished by Richardson, thirty-one deserted before reach- 
ing the fi"ont, seven of whom were retaken. 

These bonds were not ' ' local bounty, ' ' nor were they ' ' deposited 
in behalf of recruits," as stated in General Fry's letter. They either 
belonged to Richardson, who deposited them, or to the government, 
for whose security they were deposited. Hon. Ward Hunt testifies that 
' ' about $13,000 would have been forfeited under the contract, about that 
amount of men having deserted. About $7, 000 no one would have any 
claim to as against Aaron Richardson. ' ' 



252 



OONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTUOVBRSY. 



On the 4th of March, 1865, Major Haddock directed Captain Cran- 
dall to turn over those bonds to S. Floyd Hoard, special agent. Cap- 
tain Crandall sought the advice of distinguished and able counsel, and 
was told he could not safely turn over these bonds to Major Had- 
dock without risk of being held personally responsible for the amount ; 
and it also appears that Captain Crandall and his advisers had grave ap- 
prehensions, since shown to have been well founded, that it would be un- 
safe to have placed the bonds in the possession of Major Haddock. After 
taking counsel on the lltli of March, Captain Crandall stated the whole 
matter in relation to those bonds fully in a letter to General Fry, and 
asks General Fry to advise him what to do, as follows : ' ' Major Haddock 
calls ujion me to forward the money and securities to him ; counsel of 
high standing advise me that I cannot safely do so, but that I am re- 
sponsible to the parties entitled to it. The money and securities are 
now on hand, and I wish nothing so much as to pay them over. Can 
I safely pay this money to Major Haddock, and will the government 
protect me against the pei-sons who claim it? Be pleased to instruct 
me on this point. ' ' 

No answer was made by General Fry so far as the committee can 
discover. On the 30th of March, 1865, General Fry oi'dered Captain 
Crandall to turn over to Major Lee all moneys, bonds, and other evi- 
dences of indebtedness in his possession ' ' belonging to enlisted men ' ' 
who had deserted either before or after arriving at the general rendez- 
vous, and all moneys, bonds, and other evidences of indebtedness in 
his possession belonging to enlisted men other than deserters to the 
United States paymaster stationed at Elmira. It will be seen that this 
order did not include the $30,000 of bonds, which were not claimed to 
belong to enlisted men, whether deserters or others. It does appear 
clearly that Captain Crandall never claimed any right to hold these 
bonds on his own account; that he was anxious to be rid of them, and 
only sought to protect himself from liability; that he deposited the 
bonds in a bank in Utica, and that when suit was brought against him 
for the bonds, he advised General Fry of the fact, stating that he had 
no interest in defending the suit, and asking that the government 
should defend its right to the bonds. The government never having 
done this, the county of Oneida has given to Captain Crandall proper 
security to indemnify him, and assumed the defence of the suit. These 
bonds belonged unquestionably either to Aaron Richardson or to the 
government. If they belonged to Richardson, it is not easy to see why 
the complaint should be made that Captain Crandftll had violated the 
orders of the department in not turning over the bonds to Major Had- 
dock or Major Lee, leaving himself liable to Richardson for this 
amount. If they belonged to the government, it is still more difficult 



CONKLING AND BLAIXE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 253 

to see why the government should not have employed counsel and pro- 
tected its right to them. The defence of that suit was in no sense a 
defence of Captain Crandall, but simply the maintenance by the gov- 
ernment of its right to the bonds. Captain Crandall having been re- 
moved from office, and having no interest in the question, it seems 
absurd to require or expect him to defend, at his own expense, a 
suit which could not benefit or haim him. however it might be de- 
cided. 

The committee regard the action of Mr. Conkling, in directing the 
attention of the department to the condition of this fund and the mani- 
fest danger of its loss to the government, as highly commendable. 
Nor have the committee been able to discover anything improper in the 
conduct of Captain Crandall in relation to these bonds. There is one 
other statement in the letter of General Fry that comes within the limit 
of the present investigation, (to wit, the charges against Mr. Conk- 
ling;) that statment is as follows: " If while acting as judge advo- 
cate under the extraordinary inquisitorial powers bestowed upon him 
by his friend, Mr. Dana, he came into [the] possession of any fact 
impugning [or impenclimrj'] my integrity as a public officer, he 
was guilty of gross [grave] juiblic wrong and unfaithfulness if 
he did not instantly file formal charges against me with the Sec- 
retary of War. He can therefore only escape the charges [charge] 
of Jeliberate and malignant falsehood as a member of Congress 
by coiifessing an unpardonable breach of duty as judge advocate." 
No powers whatever, ' ' extraordinary and inquisitorial ' ' or other- 
wise, were bestowed upon Mr. Conkling by Mr. Dana ; whatever pow- 
ers he had were given him by the Secretary of War. and not at the sug- 
gestion of Mr. Dana. ]\Ir. Conkling was discharging the duties of 
judge advocate only in the prosecution of Major Haddock. He had 
nothing whatever to do with filing charges against General Fry. To 
this point the committee cite the testimony of the Seci'etary of War 
as follows: ' ' In the prosecution of Major Haddock to final judgment, 
Mr. Conkling performed all the duty I expected him to perform;" and 
also the testimony of Mr. Dana, as follows : "I never knew of any 
authority given to Mr. Conkling in any form, directly or indirectly, at 
any time, to investigate the acts of General Fry, or to file charges 
against him. It would have been evidently improper for him to file 
charges against General Fry, according to the usages of the department. ' ' 

ACCUSATIONS AS TO DOUBLE OFFICES AND IMPROPER FEES. 

Another of the statements of General Fry's letter which the com- 
mittee are directed to inquire into is in these words : 

'• For his services in this connexion, Mr. Conkling received, on the 



254 CONKLING AND BLAINK-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

9th of November last, from the United States the modest fee of $3,000. 
Whether he received, as it has been reported, from his district $5,000 
more for the same service, and whether he received additional fees 
from guilty parties for opposing proceedings at Utica, I am unable now 
to say." 

This is asserted in connexion with and after the statement that 
" In the summer of 1863 Mr. Conkling made a case for himself by tel- 
egraphing to the War Department that the provost marshal of his dis- 
trict required legal advice, which he was thereupon empowered to 
give." 

The effect of this statement is an insinuation that the employment 
of Mr. Conkling in this prosecution was by him improperly secured ; 
that the amount of his compensation by the government was excessive, 
and that there was some reason to believe that his district had paid him, 
besides the fee from the government, for the same service, five thousand 
dollars; and, besides this, that he had been compensated by guilty 
men for corrupt services which he had rendered them in opposing the 
prosecutions which he had been employed to make. 

The charge is not mitigated in its severity by the fact that it only 
insinuates, and seeks for its author the cover of alleged report. These 
features only give to it the enhanced capacity for mischief which 
grows out of the increased difficulty of disproving what is only 
vaguely charged, instead of being stated with definiteness as to time, 
place, and circumstances. The committee can find, in all that has 
come to their knowledge, absolutely nothing which can fiirnish a pre- 
text for that part of this charge which relates to the five thousand dol- 
lars and the fee from guilty parties — not even the existence of any such 
repoit as the charge alludes to. The accusation insinuated is not only 
utterly false in fact, false in each particular, both as to the five thou- 
sand dollars from the district, and that from guilty parties, but, so far 
as proof could be found, it was false in the most insufficient apology for 
its utterance, to wit, the existence of an alleged report giving it cre- 
dence. No accusation can well be conceived more intensely hurtful 
than the last part of this one is. To say of any one that he is sordid 
or voracious in his methods of getting gain, is to deny to him most of 
the qualities of a gentleman. To add to this that he gets money by 
ordinary frauds, is to exclude him from all just title to the common 
rights of civil and social life. To add, again, that his frauds were as- 
sociated with compounding of felonies, and his gains the price of their 
concealment, is to stamp the accused with an ineffable infamy. But 
if to all this you add that he who is charged with taking the price of 
the suppressed crime is one of the members elect of his government, 
and as such charged with its safety ; that, in addition, lie had assumed 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 255 

special duties as to the prosecution of the very crimes for the alleged 
suppi-ession of wliich he has taken pay ; and that the crime suppressed 
was at least a moral treason against the government of which he was 
an officer elect, and a treason, too, committed at a time when his gov- 
ernment's existence was in deepest peril; when, we say, all these ele- 
ments combine in the accusation, the guilt charged assumes a depth of 
turpitude which can hardly find a parallel. That such a charge should, 
without any shadow of cause, be made, in any 'icm/, seems almost in- 
credible. But that it should be carefully couched in the forms of in- 
sinuation, showing timidity and solicitude in the author to avoid re- 
sponsibility, and should then be written out and sent into Congress, to 
be read in the presence of the nation, and preserved against the accused 
and his children in the history of Congress, presents, as a libel, a case 
almost new— certainly singular — for its bad eminence as a wanton and 
inexcusable violation of the rights of a citizen and member of the gov- 
ernment. 

The use that was made in the House of that part of this charge re- 
lating to the fee of |3,000 makes it due to Mr. Conkling that it s^hould 
be determined whether his being a member elect of this house rendered 
it improper or illegal for him to take the employment or its compensa- 
tion; and the insinuation contained in this statement that the fee was 
excessive renders it proper to inquire whether it was such. As to the 
latter point, the committee had no hesitation in coming to the. conclu- 
sion that Mr. Conkling' s compensation for services rendered to the 
government was a reasonable one. He had nothing to do with fixing 
its amount. That was left wholly to the government. He accepted 
the service with reluctance, and upon the most pressing and repeated 
solicitations of the Secretary of War. He took it at the sacrifice of 
other professional business of equal value, or of perhaps greater value 
to him than he realized for this. He took it at a time when it was 
almost vital to the interests of the military service in New York that 
they should be rendered. The committee are of opinion that the Sec- 
retary of War rightly judged that no one could be found more emi- 
nently qualified on all accounts for the efficient discharge of that pecul- 
iar service, under the peculiar circumstances in which it was under- 
taken and rendered. The duties he assumed were discharged with 
consummate ability, and with integrity, diligence, and complete suc- 
cess. They went through about five months. They involved the examin- 
ation of a large field of complicated facts ; a labyrinth of frauds and vil- 
lanies. The record of the trial makes some fifteen hundred pages of 
matter, and resulted not only in discovering and punishing these crimes 
against the government, but also in the conviction and punishment of 
the acting provost marshal general of western New York, IVIajor Haddock, 



256 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

and in the recovery from him of a fine of $10,000, paid into the 
United States treasury, besides the further sum of over $300,000, 
which he was constrained to pay over after the commencement of the 
prosecution. 

The committee have come unanimously to the conclusion that the 
conduct of Mr. Conkling, in entering upon that service, and in its 
management throughout, was not only free from any improper, selfish, 
or unpatriotic motives, and from all just grounds of reproach, but his 
services were singularly able, faithful, and in results valuable to the 
government. 

THE LAW. 

The only other question touching this part of the matter referred to ' 
the committee to be considered is, whether there was any legal imped- 
iment in the way of Mr. Conkling, he being a member elect of the 39th 
Congress, assuming the relation he did assume to the prosecution of 
Haddock. The committee have sought cax-efully to inquire whether 
there was any such legal impediment. 

RIGHT OF DEPARTMENTS TO EMPLOY AND PAY AGENTS. 

In determining upon this question, it seems perfectly safe to as- 
sume that what is said by the Supreme Court of the United States, in 
Gratiot vs. United States, 15 Peters, 371, is the settled law applicable 
to this class of cases, to wit, that • ' a department charged with the ex- 
ecution of particular authority, business, or duty, has always been 
deemed incidentally to possess the right to employ the proper persons to 
perform the same." * 4= 1= " And also the right, when the service 
or duty is an extra service or duty, to allow the person so employed a 
suitable compen.sation." "'This doctrine is not new," says the Su- 
preme Court, "but is fully expounded in the cases of The United 
States vs. Riley, 7 Peters 18, and The United States vs. Fillebrown, 7 
Peters, 28. " And the court adds : ' ' that in order to justify a refusal 
to allow such compensation, it is indispensable to show that there is some 
law which positively prohibits, or by just implication denies, any al- 
lowance of such compensation." This was said by the court in a 
case where it was an ofiicer of the United States who was claiming the 
compensation for services outside of his salary. 

THE PROHIBITIONS. 

We assume, then, that there is nothing in the general relations of a 
member elect of Congress to his government, nor in the general princi- 
ples of the law growing out of that relation, which would forbid Mr. 
■ Conkling becoming the agent or attorney of the government, and re- 
ceiving compensation therefor; and that if his relations to the Had- 
dock trial were illegal, it must be owing to some express provision of 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



257 



the Constitution or of the law. Is there any such legal prohibition? 
The legal provisions which have been brought to the attention of the 
committee, and which are supposed to have some bearing upon the 
question of the legality of Mr. Conkling's relations to the Haddock 
trial, and his compensation therefor, .are the following: 

1. The Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. VI.) declares that "No person 
holding an office under the United States shall be a member of either 
House during his continuance in office." 

2. The 18th section of the act of 31st August, 1852 (1 Bright- 
ly, 821), provides that " No person hereafter who holds or shall hold 
any office under the government of the United States, whose salary or 
annual compensation shall amount to the sum of two thousand five 
hundred dollars, shall receive compensation for discharging the duty 
of any other office." 

3. The 3d section of the act of 3d March, 1839 (5 United States Stat- 
utes, 349, and 1 Brightly, 820), which reads as follows: *No officer 
in any branch of the public service, or any other person, whose salaries, 
or whose pay or emoluments is or are fixed by law or regulations, shall 
receive any extra allowance or compensation in any form whatever for 
the disbursements of public money or the performance of any other ser- 
vice, unless the said extra allowance or compensation be authorized by 
law. ' ' 

4. The 2d section of the act of 23d August. 1842 (5 United States 
Statutes, 510, and 1 Brightly, 820), which reads as follows: "No ofii- 
cer in any branch of the public service, or any other person, whose 
salary, pay, or emoluments is or are fixed by law or regulations, shall 
receive any additional pay, extra allowance or compensation in any 
form whatever for the disbursements of public money or other service 
or duty whatever, unless the same shall be authorized by law, and 
the appropriation therefor explicitly set forth that it is for such addi- 
tional pay, extra allowance, or compensation." 

5. The 12thsectionof the act of 26th August, 1842 (1 Brightly, 821, 
5 United States Statutes, 525), which reads as follows : "No allowance 
or compensation shall be made to any clerk or other ofiicer by reason of 
the discharge of the duties which belong to any other clerk or officer in 
the same or any other department ; and no allowance or compensation 
shall be made for any extra service whatever which any clerk or other 
officer may be required to perform." 

6. The 1st section of the act of 30th of September, 1850 (1 Brightly, 
821, 9 United States Statutes, 542), which reads as follows: "The 
proper accounting officer of the treasury, or other pay officers of the 
United States, shall in no case allow or pay to one individual the sal- 
aries of two different offices on account of having performed the duties 



258 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



thereof at the same time. But this prohibition shall not extend to the 
superintendents of the public buildings." 

7. The 1st section of the act of April 21, 1808 (1 Brightly, 190, and 
2 United States Statutes, 484), which reads as follows: " No member 
of Congress shall, directly or indirectly, himself, or by any other per- 
son whatsoever in trust for him. or for his use or benefit, or on his ac- 
count, undertake, execute, hold, or enjoy, in whole or in part, any con- 
tract or agreement hereafter to be made or entered into with any officer 
of the United States in their behalf, or with any person authorized to 
make contracts on the part of the United States; and if any member 
of Congress shall, directly or indirectly, himself, or by any other per- 
son whatsoever in trust for him, or for his use or benefit, or on his ac- 
count, enter into, accept, or agree for or undertalce or execute a)iy such con- 
tract or agreement, in whole or in part, every member so offending 
shall, for every such offence, upon conviction thereof before any court 
of the United States or the Territories thereof having cognizance of 
such offence, be adjudged guilty of a high misdemeanor and shall be 
fined three thousand dollars; and every such contract or agreement as 
•aforesaid shall moreover be absolutely void and of no effect." 

8. The 1st section of the act of June 11, 1864 (2 Brightly, 105, and 
13 United States Statutes, 123), which reads as follows: " No member 
of the Senate or House of Representatives shall, after his election and 
during his continuance in office, nor shall any head of a department, 
head of a bureau, clerk, or other officer of the government, receive or 
agree to receive any compensation whatsoever, directly or indirectly, 
for any services rendered or to be rendered, after the passage of this 
act, to any person, either by himself or another, in relation to any pro- 
ceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or 
other matter or thing in which the United States is a party, or directly 
or indirectly interested, before any department, court-martial, bureau, 
officer, or any civil, military, or naval commission whatever; and any 
person offending against the provisions of this act shall, on conviction 
thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdeameanor, and be punished by a fine 
not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by imprisonment for a term 
not exceeding two years, at the discretion of the court trying the same, 
and shall be forever thereafter incapable of holding any office of honor 
or trust or profit under the government of the United States." 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION. 

These are all of the existing laws which have come to the attention 
of the committee, and which are supposed to contain anything bearing, 
either nearly or remotely, upon the matter of this service of Mr, Conk- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 259 

ling being prohibited by law. There are other laws which bear upon 
other points in this inquiry, which will be alluded to. 

With these provisions of the Constitution and law before us, and 
assuming as law that which we have above stated from the case of 
Gratiot rs. The United States (15 Peters, 371', we inquire whether any 
of these provisions of express law do away with that general principle 
as applicable to the matter before the committee; or whether either of 
these provisions prohibit or render illegal what was done by Mr. Conk- 
ling in the Haddock trial, he being a member elect of the 39th Con- 
gress. 

To avoid, if we can, confusion, we first consider this without ref- 
erence to the question whether Mr. Conkling should be paid, as a mem- 
ber of the 39th Congress, for the same time covered by his service in the 
Haddock trial, and for which time it is suggested he was paid by the 
fee of thi'ee thousand dollars, and let the inquiry be first disposed of 
whether it was illegal for Mr. Conkling to assume that service and to 
take compensation therefor. 

And, in disposing of this inquiry, let it first be granted that Mr. 
Conkling, in what occurred in that service, became and was a "judge 
advocate, ' ' in the strictest sense, and that he was thereby made an 
officer of the' United States, and was not a mere agent and counsel of 
the government. 

In entering upon this inquiry, the committee do not forget the 
tnith nor the supreme importance of that principle of our government 
which was pressed upon the attention of the committee in the argu- 
ment of this case, and which received, during the 38th Congress, the 
sanction of this House in its approval of the report in the cases of Rob- 
ert C. Schenck and of Francis P. Blair. The jirinciple to which we 
allude is thus stated in that report: 

*' Nothing is plainer in the theory and plan of this government 
than the distinct and separate organization of the executive, judi.cial, 
and legislative departments, and the sedulous care with which each 
has been clothed and guarded in the exercise of duties entirely in- 
dependent of the others. Yet the attempt to invest the same person 
with two offices, one legislative and the other executive, and require of 
him at the same time the discharge of the duties of both, is, whether they 
be conflicting or not, a commingling of the duties of the executive and 
legislative departments. It is bringing the Executive himself into 
the very halls of Congress, and if persisted in, might ultimately prove 
as pernicious as if he had a seat therein, and as many votes as be had 
commissions. If one representative in Congress may at the same time 
hold under the Executive the office of major general, so may another, 
and another may as well be a brigadier general, or hold any other offi- 



260 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



cial position in the military service under the Executive and command- 
er-in-chief, and bound to obey him. By such process the House may 
at any time be put under the control and become the pliant instrument 
of the Executive to any end. Its members would cease to be the rep- 
resentatives of the people, and become only the agents of the Execu- 
tive." 

The framers of the Constitution saw this so clearly, and felt the in- 
dependence of the legislative over the executive department was so es- 
sential and vital that they deemed the inhibition worthy of an express 
constitutional enactment, that " no person holding any office under the 
United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance 
in office. ' ' (Art. 1 , sec. VI. ) 

Still, in view of this important principle, the committee have not 
been able to see how the acceptance and discharge of the duties of the 
office of judge advocate by Mr. Conkling, the duties, tenure, and exist- 
ence of which office (if such it was in him) were in their nature such 
as would most likely be, and were in fact, wholly ended and gone be- 
fore he was, by law or the Constitution, required to qualify as a mem- 
ber of Congress, or to enter upon, assume, or discharge any Guty as 
such, conflicting with these principles. Upon this subject-matter the 
committee deem the following two propositions to be entirely settled 
in our government: 1. "The acceptance by a member of any office 
under the United States, after he has been elected to, and has taken his 
seat in Congress, operates as a forfeiture of his seat. ' ' (See Van Ness case, 
CI. and Hall, 122; Schenck and Blair case, 38th Congress, &c.) 2. 
" Continuing to execute the duties of an office under the United States 
after one is elected to Congress, but before he takes his seat, is not a dis- 
qualification, such office being resigned or extinct prior to the taking of 
the seat." (See Hammond vs. Herrick, CI. and Hall, 287; Earl's case, 
ibid., 314; Munford'scase, ibid., 316; Schenck and Blair's case, 38th 
Congress, &c.) 

The committee agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the re- 
port, from which we have already (quoted, that the continuance to hold 
another office after the time when the law and Constitution n quires 
the member elect to qualify and enter upon the discharge of his duties 
as a member, is, in legal contemplation, an act of election by him to 
vacate his office as a member ; and such continuance to hold the other of- 
fice is equivalent, in its legal significance, to the act of acceptiiKj and 
entering upon an office tendered after the member was qualified. Both 
alike vacate the legislative office. The act, therefore, of Mr. Conkling 
in acceptimj an office not previously held, which, from its nature, would 
terminate before he would be required to assume any duty as a mem- 
ber, had no more nor less effect in depriving him of his right to enter 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 261 

upon his ollice as a member of Congress than the act of continuing, 
after he was elected, to exercise the duties of an office which he had 
previously entered upon would have. Neither operates to vacate his 
seat in this house, the first office being such as must be and was wholly 
ended or abandoned before the time comes when he is required to enter 
upon his duties as a legislator. The act of acceptance of such a tem- 
porary office at such a time did not, in its nature, indicate any election 
or purpose to abandon or resign the membership in Congress. " The 
object of the constitutional prohibition upon an officer becoming a 
member of Congress is attained, so far as it can be, by this provision, if 
the inhibition attaches the moment the member enters upon the dis- 
charge of his duties as such, and nothing is gained by an earlier appli- 
cation of it." There was, therefore, no constitutional objection to Mr. 
Conkling's accepting this office of judge advocate, if he did become such 
oflScer. 

PROHIBITORY STATUTES. 

The acts of Congress above referred to, of the dates, respectively, 
of March 3, 1839, and of the 23d and 26th of AugU8t,1842, are, as is said 
by the Attorney General of the United States (5 Opins., 768), "the 
same in their sense and meaning ' ' ; and as to all of these acts, includ- 
ing that of September 30, 1850, above cited, he says: "They do not for- 
bid a person from holding two compatible offices at the same time. 
They were intended to prevent arbitrary extra allowances in each par- 
ticular case, but do not apply to distinct employments with salaries af- 
fixed to each by law or regulations." (See also 6 Opins., 80 and 
825.) 

If the committee were left to their own construction of these stat- 
utes of 1839, 1842, and 1850, we would have attained the same 
conclusion at which the Attorney General arrived in these opinions. 
But when there is added to the force of these and several other equiva- 
lent opinions by the Attorney General of this government, the weight 
of the fact that all these statutes were in force when most of the very 
numerous decisions by this House were made, determining that there 
was nothing either illegdl or unconstitutional in a member of Congress 
elect (but not (lualified) holding an office under the United States gov- 
ernment, provided he did not hold it after the time came when the 
Constitution required him to assume his duties as a legislator, the com- 
mittee could not hesitate in coming to the conclusion that neither the 
Constitution nor either of these statutes alluded to in the opinion of the 
Attorney General, were violated when Mr. Conkling became (if he did) 
special judge advocate, and took compensation therefor. We say 
" took compensation therefor," because in all the cases we have cited 
the member elect, as the committee understand the history of the cases, 



262 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



received hia compensation for his first office during the time he held it, 
but not his compensation as a member for the same time. 

THE STATUTE AGAINST JOBBING. 

Although not quite in proper order, it may perhaps as well be said 
here as anywhere else that the committee do not see what the statute of 
April 21, 1808, has to do with this inquiry. That act renders it a crime 
for any member of Congress to "undertake, execute, hold or enjoy, 
in whole or in part, any contract or agreement, hereafter to be made or 
entered into, with any officer of the United States, in their behalf, or 
with any person authorized to make contracts on the part of the United 
States." No "contract " or "agreement" has been proved in this 
case between Mr. Conkling and any other person, coming within what 
is the obvious meaning of these words in the act of 1808, The design 
of that statute is what is expressed by the Attorney General of the 
United States (4 Opins., 48) when he says, "The object of the statute 
is only to prevent jobbing between members of the legislature and the 
Executive for the primary advantage of the former." Surely the prac- 
tice which has been general and uninterrupted, as must be within the 
personal knowledge of every intelligent citizen, of members of Congress 
acting as the attorneys of their government, has not subjected all such 
attorneys to indictment and fine of three thousand dollars. No one 
has suggested that such is the law, and the committee would have made 
no allusion to it but for the fact that it is presented to our consideration 
in the brief of Mr. Conkling. 

THE ACT PROHIBITING MEMBERS BECOMING CL.MM AGENTS, ETC. 

The act of June 11, 1864, cited above, renders it a high crime for 
any member of Congress, at any time after his election, " to receive or 
agree to receive any compensation for any services rendered to any 
person in relation to any proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, 
charge, accusation, arrest, or other matter or thing in which the United 
States is a party, or interested directly or indirectly, before any depart- 
ment, court-martial, bureau, officer, or any civil, military, or naval 
commissioner whatever." 

This statute would have been directly in point had Mr. Conkling 
received compensation for being the counsel for Haddock in this court- 
martial. The fact that this recent statute, passed in full and thorough- 
ly intelligent view of all the important questions of law, which your 
committee is required to consider, carefully confines its prohibitions to 
preventing members elect from taking compensation for services ren- 
dered before courts-martial, &c., " to any person" and against the gov- 
ernment, and does not prohibit such compensation being paid by the 
government, nor prohibit such service being rendered in its favor; and 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERST. 



263 



this, too, in the identical case before the committee, is one of the strong- 
est possible legislative determinations of the very question we consider. 
Here is a law which comes up squarely, face to face, in front of that 
exact question we consider, to wit, whether a member elect to Congress 
ought to be permitted to receive compensation for services rendered to 
either of the parties to a trial before a court-martial. And the Con- 
gress said it should not be lawful for him to take compensation for ser- 
vices rendered to one side — " any person " — and now shall we be told 
that Congress meant to declare that it was equally illegal to take com- 
pensation for services rendered to the other side, to wit, for services in 
favor of the United States ? On the other hand, is this not a conclu- 
sive legislative determination that a member elect might be compen- 
sated for services rendered to that other non-prohibited side of the case? 
It so seems to the committee. 

ACT OF 1852. 

This disposes of all the alleged legal prohibitions upon Mr. Conk- 
ling's entering upon the service, unless it be (and we think including) 
that supposed to be contained in the 18th section of the act of 2l8t of 
July, 1852, already cited, (1 Brightly, 821,) and which is as follows: 
" No person hereafter who holds or shall hold any office under the gov- 
ernment of the United States, whose salary or annual compensation 
shall amount to the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, shall re- 
ceive compensation for discharging the duties of any other office. ' ' 

It was suggested in the debates in the House, and earnestly urged 
elsewhere, that this section, even if it did not render Mr. Conkling's 
services upon the Haddock trial illegal, does render it illegal for him to 
receive compensation for his services upon that trial. The committee 
is not quite certain that the order of the House directing it to inquire 
into the charges against Mr. Conkling contained in the letter of General 
Fry to Mr. Blaine admits of the committee's examining the question 
whether Mr. Conkling was entitled to take that compensation of $8,000. 
That letter does not charge that the taking of any fee was illegal, but 
only insinuates that it was excessive. Still, after what occurred touch- 
ing this double compensation in the debates of the House, the commit- 
tee deem it proper to examine this question also. If it be outside of the 
duties of the committee, an easy way of preventing mischief from this 
part of the report will be to disregard it. 

The determination of the question whether this act of 1852 renders 
it illegal for Mr. Conkling to receive, in addition to his salary as a mem- 
ber of Congress, this $3,000, requires the committee to determine one 
or more of the following questions : 

1. Is one who has been elected to Congress, but who has not yet 



264 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



taken the cath of office, nor in any way entered upon the discharge of the 
duties of hia office, and prior to the time when, by law, he is required 
to enter upon these duties, " a person who holds any office " ? 

2. Granting that he is, in the case stated in the preceding ques- 
tion, a person holding an office, then does he hold an office *' under 
the government of the United States " within the just sense of this 
section ? 

3. If he, as a member elect, is an officer " under the government 
of the United States," then did Mr. Conkling, in what he did in the 
Haddock service, become an officer of the United States ? 

4. If he did not become an officer of the United States, did he, in 
that Haddock trial, discharge " the .duties of any other office " and re- 
ceive compensation therefor? 

IS A MEMBER ELECT ONE HOLDING OFFICE? 

The first of these inquiries is, in the judgment of the committee, 
answered so far as is necessary in deciding upon the effect of the act 
of 1853, by the cases of Hammond, of Earl, of Munford, of Schenck, 
and others, which we have already cited. These cases, as we have 
seen, all determine that, prior to the time when the Constitution requires 
the member elect to commence the duties of his legislative office, 
and before he has assumed these duties and taken the oath of office, he 
may receive compensation for discharging the duties of another office. 
As we have already said, these cases do not determine that he may also 
be compensated as a member of Congress for the same time for which 
he was compensated in the other office. But they do determine that 
being a member elect of Congress does not make him an " officer " in 
such sense as to bring him within the prohibition of the act of 1853. 
This question, in substance, received the careful attention of the 
House in the 38th Congress, upon an able report of one of its commit- 
tees. The committee and House came to what your committee deem a 
just conclusion, when it determined that one merely elected to Con- 
gress, but who had not entered upon his duties nor been qualified, was 
not a member of this House, that is, did not hold an office so as to pre - 
vent him from continuing to hold another office and receive compensa- 
tion therefor. The committee, in concluding their argument showing 
that one merely elected to Congress was not a member of the House, 
and not, as such, amenable to its jurisdiction, say: "The committee 
are not aware of any attempt to punish a representative elect, and of 
but one instance of an attempt to expel one. A resolution was adopted 
by the last House, under the previous question, to expel a person who 
was a representative elect, but had never signified his acceptance of the 
office, nor qualified, nor even appeared in Washington for the purpose 
of taking his seat." 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 265 

In that case the House determined, in efifect, that the act of 1852 
did not prohibit General Schenck, while a member elect of Congress, 
from receiving the pay of another office, to wit, that of major general 
of volunteers. 

This is the last case in which this question came before the House. 
But the same question received, in the 15th Congress, in the case of 
Hammond vs. Herrick, (Clark and Hall, Contested Elections, 293, 294,) 
a still more elaborate and exhaustive consideration. In the report in 
that case (which also received the sanction of the House) this doctrine 
was explicitly stated, and was affirmed after a thorough review of the 
Eoglish and American cases touching it. The case held the rule which 
was stated by the committee in these words : " Neither do election and 
return constitute morahership. " * * * " Our rule in this particular 
is different from that of the House of Commons. It is also better, for 
it makes our theory conform to what is fact in both countries — that the 
act of becoming in reality a memlier of the House depends wholly upon 
the person elected and returned. Election does not of itself constitute 
membership, although the period may have arrived at which the con- 
gressional term commences," 

This House has again and again determined that men elected to it, 
who do not appear in the body and assume the constitutional oath of 
office, are not to be reckoned as members of the House in determining 
the number required to make a majority or quorum of the body. 

FRANKINa PRIVILEGE, ETC. 

The committee, in coming to this conclusion, have not overlooked 
the fact that members elect, but not qualified, are by the laws accorded 
certain privileges and salary. The effect of this right to enjoy these 
privileges before becoming qualitied as a member of the legislative body 
has received the fullest attention both in this House and in the English 
Parliament. The result attained is, that these special privileges are 
not necessarily indicia of actual official authority or station, and may by 
law as well be attached to one's person before and after he is an officer 
and during his official tenure. The representatives after the expiration 
of their terms, the Presidents of the United States after such expira- 
tion, and the widows of certain ex-Presidents, all have the franking 
privilege, and these are not then officers of the government in any 
sense. The assumption of office in this country, as well as its relin- 
quishment, is voluntary, and one elected to Congress is at perfect liber- 
ty to refuse to assume the office. His exercise of the franking privi- 
lege, with the knowledge that he never would enter upon the duties of 
the office, would be an act of bad faith towards his government ; but 
that would not render him a member of Congress, nor would the 



266 CONKLINft AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

exercise prevent him, should failure of health or other cause render it 
improper to enter upon his office, from rightly refusing ever to take the 
office. . 

Other and perhaps more conclusive considerations bearing upon 
this important inquiry might be given ; but it is not deemed best to 
pursue it further. The committee are entirely satisfied that the law of 
this House is fully and rightly settled as to this point, and that he is not 
a memher of Congress, nor one who " holds any office under the govern- 
ment of the United States," who has only been elected to this House, 
but who has never taken any oath of office nor entered upon the duties 
of that position. 

Mr. Conkling was not prohibited by the act of 1852 from receiving 
compensation as he did for his services in the Haddock trial, even if his 
duties on that trial were official. We have not yet reached the ques- 
tion of his right to be also paid his salary as a member of this House for 
the same time covered by the Haddock service. 

IS AN ACTING MEMBER OF CONGRESS AN OFFICER OF OR UNDER THE 

GOVERNMENT ? 

The next proposition the committee were called to consider and de- 
cide is thus stated by Mr. Conkling : 

"A representative in Congress is not at all within the words ^person 
tcho holds an office under the government of the United States.'' Senators 
and representatives do not hold offices under the government of the United 
States. They are part of the government, and therefore not afl!ected 
one way or the other by these provisions." 

If the committee were sustained in the views they have taken of 
other propositions in this inquiry, then the consideration of this one 
would not be necessary to the determination of what is before the com- 
mittee. But as the committee may not be sustained in the other prop- 
ositions which dispose of the case, they have i^elt impelled carefully to 
consider this one. 

The proposition that a member of Congress who has been sworn 
into office is not an officer under the government of the United States, 
within the sense of the act of 1852, is supported by an appeal to au- 
thorities expounding the sense of these words as used in the Constitu- 
tion. 

These or similar words are found in the Constitution in the follow- 
ing clauses : 

1. That prohibiting senators and representatives during the term 
for which they are elected from being appointed to "any civil office 
under the authority of the United States" which was created or its emol- 
uments increased during such time. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 267 

2. That prohibiting a person " holding any qtfice iinder the United 
States from being a member of either House of Congress. ' ' 

3. That giving Congress the power to make all laws necessary to 
carry into effect the powers vested by the Constitution in "ajiy officer of 
the (jdeernment of the United States." 

4. That prohibiting every " person holding an// office of prof t or 
trust under the United ^States from accepting any present, office, &c., 
from any king, prince or foreign state without the consent of Con- 
gress. ' ' 

5. That prohibiting every senator, representative, and person 
" holding an office of trust or profit under the United States''' from being 
appointed an elector for President, &c. 

6. That providing that the President shall commission " all officers 
of the United States.'''' 

7. That providing that " all civil officers of the United States shaXl be 
removed from office on impeachment. ' ' 

8. That prohibiting any one who has suffered a judgment of im- 
peachment from holding or enjoying ''any office of honor, trust, oi' pjrofit 
under the United States.''' 

The proposition stated, and which the committee are atked to af- 
firm, is, that a member of Congress and his office are not included in 
the scope or meaning of the words of the Constitution, "officer under the 
United States," or "civil office under the authority of the United 
States. " It is said that he is part of the government and is not 
under it. It seems to be indicated that he may, in the sense of the 
Constitution, be an officer of the government, but not under the gov- 
ernment. In the impeachment of Blount (Wharton's State Trials, 268, 
&c.) this argument is presented by Mr. Bayard, but he (p. 269) makes 
the very proper remark as to such an argument that he was " unwilling 
to place any confidence upon an argument derived from mere verbal 
criticism. In construing the charter of a government, our views 
should comprehend all its parts, and our aim should be to execute it ac- 
cording to its general and true design." No method of attaining the 
sense of the Constitution is more unsafe than this one of " sticking" in 
sharp verbal criticism. But a little consideration of this matter will 
show that " officers of " and " officers under " the United States are (as 
said by Mr. Dallas, in this Blount case, p. 277) "indiscriminately used 
in the Constitution." Take that clause as to who may be impeached. 
The Constitution says that "the President, Vice-President, and all civil 
officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeach- 
ment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and 
misdemeanors." Now, then, if officers of the United States do not in- 
clude officers under the United States, (that is, officers appointed by 



268 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

the President, such as judges, &c.,) then you cannot impeach anybody 
except the President, Vice-President, and, perhaps, the members of 
Congress, if the latter are to be deemed officers of the government. 
Again: the judgment of impeachment diequalifies the convict from 
holding " any office of trust or profit under the United States," and not 
from holding the offices of the United States. You can only impeach 
them who are officers of the United States, and then, when impeached, 
they are only prohibited from holding offices under the United States — 
that is, they can hold the same offices from which they were excluded 
by impeachment, but cannot hold the inferior executive offices under 
those from which the impeachment does not perpetually exclude 
them. 

Again : the Constitution provides that *' the President shall appoint 
all officers <)/'the United States." Are not the judges, ministers, heads 
of departments, postmasters, &c., officers under the United States? If 
so, they are also officers of the United States, because the Constitution 
only authorizes him to appoint officers of the United States. 

It is irresistibly evident that no argument can be based on the dif- 
ferent sense of the words " o/"" and " under, ^' as used in these clauses of 
the Constitution, and we must approach this question as to whether a 
member of Congress is an officer " under " the United States, with the 
knowledge that if we find him to be eitltei- an officer " of " the United 
States, or one " under " the government of the United States, in either 
case he has been brought within the constitutional meaning of these 
words, as used in the act of 1852, because they are made by the Con- 
stitution equivalent and interchangeable. 

All we have to do, therefore, is to find out whether the Constitution 
anywhere (not everyichcre) uses these expressions " officers of " or "of- 
ficers under the United States ' ' in such sense as must include mem- 
bers of Congress. If the Constitution once so uses either of these equiv- 
alent expressions, then all argument as to the sense of these words in 
the act of 1852, so far as that argument is derived from their meaning in 
the Constitution, is destroyed, because if the Constitution once uses 
these words in a sense which includes members of Congress, then so 
may the act of 1852 so use them. 

Now, let us see whether there is any clause where one or other of 
these phrases, " officers of " or " officers under the government of the 
United States," must include members of Congress. 

Take the clause above cited as to receiving presents, &c., from any 
king, &c There the prohibition is that " no person holding any office 
of profit or trust under the United States shall," &c. Now, will it do to 
hold that a clerk in the post-office shall not be permitted to receive of- 
fices, &c., from a king, &c., without the assent of Congress, and yet 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



269 



every member of the S9nate or of the House be permitted to be 
"plied," in the interests of a foreign government, with bribes, in the 
shape of presents, offices, emoluments, and titles ? May the King of 
England make the American Senate a British House of Lords? He 
may, unless the position of a senator and representative is an " officer 
under the United States," because there is no other clause prohibiting 
such bestowals ! Again : take the clause containing the requirement 
that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any of- 
fice or public trust uiuler the United States. Now, shall it be held that 
a member of Congress may be required to have some religion, or a par- 
ticular religion, by the establishment of a religious test as to his office, 
and yet all the other offices of the government be kept open to the in- 
fidels? And yet this is the law of the government, unless a member of 
Congress be one holding an office or public trust under the United 
States ; for there is no other prohibition than this one upon requiring 
such religious tests. 

Or take the clause, already cited, as to the effect of judgments of 
impeachment. If a member of Congress does not bold any office of 
trust or profit under the United States, then his is an office into which 
one may immediately and freely enter who has, by impeachment, just 
been convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crime. This is be- 
cause the only places into which an impeached felon cannot enter 
are " offices of honor, trust, or profit under the United States." The 
convicted traitor may not enter the office of " deputy United States 
assessor of internal revenue, " but he may become United States sena- 
tor! 

We might increase theae examples, but surely it is not necessary. 
Surely it cannot be that the Constitution contains elements so repugnant 
to all just or safe principles of government. 

But we are referred to authorities to establish this proposition that 
a member of Congress is not an officer "of" or "under" the United 
States ; and the leading case relied on is the impeachment of William 
Blount, a United States senator from Tennessee. The case is found 
fully reported in Wharton's State Trials, 250. Justice Story (1 Const., 
section 793) says this case decides that a United States senator is not a 
civil officer of the United States. This remark of the learned author is 
obviously an incautious one, and not fully authorized by what occurred 
in that case. The same author in the same section expressly declares 
that the ' ' reasoning by which the decision was sustained does not ap- 
pear, the deliberations having been private." He adds that " it was 
in-ohaWj held that civil officers of the United States " meant such as de- 
rived their appointment from and under the national government, &c. 
The defences of Mr. Blount (see page 3G0) were various. His main 



270 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



ones were : First, that the oflFences charged were cognizable in the 
civil courts and not on impeachment, they not relating to his official 
duties. Second, that he had been expelled from the Senate before 
the trial of the impeachment, and that he was therefore not an officer of 
the United States and not amenable to the Senate. 

As to what this case does decide, Whartoa (page 317) justly says : 
" In a legal point of view, all that this case decides is, that a senator of 
the United States -who has heen expelled from his seat is not. (ifter such ex- 
2ndsion, subject to impeachment ; and 2^^'''haps from this the broader 
proposition may be drawn that none are liable to impeachment except 
officers of the government in the technical sense, excluding thereby 
members of the national legislature. ' ' 

Judge Story further says of this decision that it was one on " which 
the Senate was greatly divided," (14 to 11,) and which " seems not to 
have been quite satisfactory to the minds of some learned commenta- 
tors." (4 Tuck. Black. Com. App,, 57, 58; Rawle on Const., ch. 23» 
pp. 213, 214, 218, 219.) 

Without, therefore, designing to determine that the case of Blount 
did not decide that a member of Congress was not a civil officer of the 
United States " in some technical sense," the committee are wholly 
unable to come to the conclusion that the members of the national Con- 
gress are not, in the enlarged and general sense of the Constitution, 
officers of their government. The committee do not believe that any 
authority is to be found holding that they are not. It by no means 
follows, because a member of Congress may not be tried by impeach- 
ment, that he is not a " civil officer of the United States " in the sense 
we now consider. There are other clauses and principles of the Con- 
stitution which affect the question of the right to impeach a senator, be- 
sides that single one as to who are included in the just sense of the 
words "civil officers of the United States." Such is that one provid- 
ing a method for the expulsion of members ; also those as to the sepa- 
rate and independent action of the two Houses touching their own 
members, &c. These and like considerations may well be held to con- 
trol and qualify the words of the clause of the Constitution as to who 
may be impeached. No one can read the singularly able and exhaus- 
tive argument in the case of Blount and not realize that the other 
principles and terms of the Constitution ought to and did control the 
sense of the words " all civil officers of the United States,*' as used in 
this clause. The committee decline to find that an acting member of 
Congress is not an officer of this government within the sense of at least 
some of the clauses of the Constitution. The committee here leave this 
important question made in this case. The effort of the committee, so 
far as this single point is concerned, has been to bring to the attention 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



271 



of the House the leading considerations which must form the basis of 
its determination by the House, should its determination be found 
necessary. In the opinion of the committee, the determination of this 
point is not necessary to the right determination of all that is before 
the committee, and this is not, perhaps, a proper case in which to make 
a precedent upon so vital a constitutional question. 

ACT OF 1852 INCLUDES ACTING MEMBERS IN THE WORD "OFFICE." 

But suppose it be granted that the constihitional sense of the words 
" officer of the United States," or " office under the United States," be 
what is insisted by Mr. Conkling, does it follow that they are used 
in so limited a sense in the act of 1852 ? Having regard to the mischief 
meant to be prevented by it, the committee have been wholly unable to 
find adequate reasons why a member of Congress who has taken his 
seat should not be deemed an officer "of" or "under" the govern- 
ment in such sense as that he should not be permitted to draw the sala- 
ries of two offices at the same time, though holding but one. To hold 
that a member of Congress is as free as other men from human infirm- 
ities, and as little liable to fall into temptation, is, probably, according 
to him, as high a grade of virtue as would be accorded to him either 
by the truth or by the judgment of his fellow-men. But if you look to 
the nature and powers of his office, and the absolutely vital importance 
of having him removed as far as possible from the bad influences of 
corruption and avarice, such as he would be liable to encounter, could 
he become entitled to the pay of many offices at the same time, the 
propriety of holding that this act of 1852 meant to preclude members of 
Congress from receiving double salaries becomes quite irresistible. We 
therefore conclude that whatever may be the meaning of the words 
" office under the United States," as used in the Constitution, they, in 
the act of 1852, ought to be held to, and do, preclude an acting member 
of Congress from receiving compensation for the duties of any other 
office. 

WAS MR. CONKLING, AS ACTING JUDGE ADVOCATE, AN OFFICER? 

We are now brought to the question whether Mr. Conkling, in 
what occurred in this prosecution of Haddock, became an officer of the 
United States. That he did not we think is most readily ascertained. 
An office is a particular duty, charge, or trust, conferred h/ pulnlie au- 
thorit'y, and for a public purpose, with a right usually attached to re- 
ceive a fixed compensation for such service. Nothing can be plainer 
than that no office of this government can be created or conferred ex- 
cept by some public authority authorized by law to confer it. Upon 
this very question Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Maurice, (2 
Brock., 101,) says: "It is too clear, I think, for controversy, that ap- 



272 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

pointments to office can be made by heads of departments in those cases 
only which Congress has authorized by law ; and I know of no law 
which authorizes the Secretary of War to make this appointment. ' ' 
And in that case it was decided that Maurice did not become an officer, 
and that his contract with the government, on which the suit was 
brought, was good only by reason of the fact that the United States is 
a government, and as such can, at common law, make a valid contract 
with its agents as to matters of government. 

The Constitution (art. 2, sec. 2, clause 2) provides that " the Presi- 
dent shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, shall appoint " * * * "all officers of the United States whose 
appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be 
established by law. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment 
of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in 
the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. ' * This clause covers 
every possible office under or in the government. Aside from the Presi- 
dent, Vice-President, and members of Congress (these being the offices 
included under the above words, "appointment herein provided for,'') 
there are but three repositories in which can be placed the power to be- 
stow any office, to wit : the President, (the Senate assenting,) the courts 
of law, and the heads of departments. There was, in April, 1865, no 
law giving to any court or any head of any department any power 
whatever to confer upon any person any office of general or special 
judge advocate, as an ojfieer of the government. 

The 6th section of the act of July 17, 1862, (2 Brightly, 25,) author- 
izing the President, with the assent of the Senate, to appoint a judge 
advocate, with rank and pay of a major of cavalry for each army ; and 
the 6th section of the act of June 20, 1864, (2 Brightly, 26 ) authorizing 
the President, with assent of Senate, to appoint a judge advocate gen- 
eral, with rank of brigadier general, and an assistant, with rank of 
colonel of cavalry, are the only laws then in force, so far as the com- 
mittee find, permitting the appointment of any judge advocate as such. 
Counsel in their briefs have treated the 49th section of the articles of 
war of April 10, 1806, (1 Brightly, 79,) as being also in force, which 
the committee assume, on their authority, it was. This last permitted 
the jvdge adcocate or the general or officer commanding the army, detach- 
ment, or garrison to ^^ depute some jjerson to prosecute in the name of the 
United iStates''' milit&ry oSenceB, If there are any other laws bearing 
upon these appointments, they have escaped the attention of the com- 
mittee. The same section last named provides that " the judge advo- 
cate, or person officiating as such,'''' shall take a certain oath to keep secret 
the doings of the court. (1 Brightly, 86.) The 25th section of the act 
of 3d March, 1863. (2 Brightly, 26,) authorizes the judge advocate to 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 273 

issue process for witnesses. This oath and these duties Mr. Conkling 
took and performed in the Haddock trial. He had no other appoint- 
ment or commission than that shown by the letters of April 3 by Mr. 
Dana, set forth in the letter of General Fry to Mr. Blaine. He was 
not required to, nor did he take the usual oath of all officers of the 
United States, nor did he take the oath required by the act of July 2, 
1862. (2 Brightly, 348.) Without taking that oath he could not enter 
upon or take compensation for the duties of any office whatever, except 
the office of President. There is no law anywhere authorizing Mr. 
Stanton to appoint any one to the office of judge advocate. In the let- 
ter of Mr. Dana above quoted, it was said that " The Judge Advocate Gen- 
eral will be instructed to issue to you an appointment as special judge 
advocate for the prosecution of any cases that may be brought to trial 
before a military tribunal." But even this was not done. Under this 
state of law and fact the committee do not think that Mr. Conkling 
either did or could become an "officer" of the United States. Under 
these laws a judge advocate, or a general or officer, might, under the 
Constitution, '-depute" Mr. Conkling as agmt, but could not give him 
an office, because the Constitution does not permit these men to be au- 
thorized to appoint to otHce. 

"DUTIES OF ANY OTHER OFFICE." 

The only remaining question is, whether his being paid 13,000 for 
five months' service, from April 3, 1865, was such a compensation for 
" discharging the duties of any other office," as to require Mr. Conk- 
ling, in justice or legal propriety, to either pay back what he has re- 
ceived for those services, or else not to draw his salary as a member of 
Congress for that time. 

The committee submit to the House the following propositions as 
conclusions at which they have arrived as to this point : 

1. When a member elect of Congress has drawn the salary or pay 
for any other office, for any time after the 4th of March preceding his 
entering upon his duties as a member of Congress, he should not re- 
ceive any compensation as a member of Congress for that same time. 

2. The act of 31st August, 1852, (1 Brightly, 821,) which 
is relied on as prohibiting Mr. Conkling from receiving the 
$3,000, does not apply to " duties" or services for which there was no 
officer provided by law whose duty it was to discharge them, and which 
duties were, in their nature and in law, such that " some other person" 
than an officer might legally discharge them, 

3. The duties discharged by Mr. Conkling were duties for the 
doing of which the law had not provided, nor paid any other officer, 
and charged such officer, as part of his official duty at that time and 



274 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



place, to enter upon and do. But, on the other hand, they are services 
which, in their nature and under existing law, (1 Brightly, 79 and 80,) 
some other person than a judge advocate could do. The law expressly 
permitted some person not a judge advocate, and " detailed by him " 
and " officiating as such," to discharge them, 

4. The law, or military regulations in pursuance of law, may con- 
fer upon private individual^, not officers, powers similar to those usually 
exercised by officers, such as that of issuing subpoenas, swearing wit- 
nesses, &c. Such is common in regulations touching elections, special 
commissions, the duties in some of the States of attorneys, of grand 
jurors, and the like. These conferments of such temporary or limited 
powers do not, in the sense of the Constitution and laws of the United 
States, necessarily constitute the recipients of them "officers, " nor make 
their duties those of "any office." 

5. Mr. Conkling's services in the Haddock trial were not " the 
duties of any other office," within the meaning of the act of 1852, and 
he was entitled to compensation therefor, the same as for any private 
service rendered by him in his profession. His having, therefore, re- 
ceived this money as the ordinary earnings of his profession, its receipt 
no more requires him to decline to draw his salary for that time than 
the collection of any of his other earnings during that time requires it. 

THE ANIMUS OF THE BLAINE LETTER. 

In the month of February, A.D. 1SG5, General Fry entered into an 
arrangement with Colonel L. C. Baker, chief of the United States de- 
tective force, and the firm of Allen, Riley & Hughes, then notorious 
bounty brokers in the city of New York, having for its object the arrest 
of bounty- jumpers and deserters who then, as was supposed, infested 
the vicinity of that city. The arrangement was first made between 
Colonel Baker and Allen, Riley & Hughes, in the city of New York, 
but subsequently the plan was communicated to General Fry, and by 
him approved. 

The plan was as follows : 

Lieutenant Colonel Ilges, of the 14th United States infantry, was to 
be detailed, with orders to open an enrolling and enlisting office at 
Hoboken, New Jersey. Facilities were to be given all the known 
bounty- jumpers and deserters in the vicinity to enlist and desert with 
impunity until the facility for such desertion should become known to 
all other bounty- j umpers in the neighborhood, which was supposed to 
be a sufficient inducement to secure, upon a day fixed, the enrolment 
and enlistment of a large number, who were to be arrested by a detach- 
ment of United States soldiers to be detailed for that purpose. 

By a general order of the War Department at that time the head 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



275 



of each board of enrolment was required to detain and hold in his hands 
the local bounty allowed to each recruit, which, at this point, was three 
hundred dollars. The object of this was to secure the arrival of the 
recruit at the point of rendezvous, at which time the money was to be 
paid to the recruit. Messrs. Allen, Riley & Hughes were to provide all 
the cash necessary for this purpose. In consideration of such advance- 
ments, and the effect the enterprise might have upon the subsequent 
business of Allen, Riley & Hughes, all bounty- jumpers and deserters 
enlisted were credited regularly upon the books of the office, certificates 
of regular enlistments were made and signed by the proper officer of the 
board, and the same delivered to said Allen, Riley & Hughes, who were 
allowed to sell them to persons desiring substitutes, or to the authorities 
of towns, cities, or counties in the vicinity ; and when such certificates 
were thus sold, such person or corporation were accredited therewith as 
though such enlistment had been made in good faith. 

Oa the first day of March, 1865, in pursuance of the foregoing 
arrangements. Colonel Ilges opened an office at Hoboken, and com- 
menced taking recruits. On the fourth of the same month he received, 
through Captain H. J. Mills, the following instructions : 

"Washington, D. C, March 4,, 1865. 
" Until otherwise ordered, you are directed to allow credits for 
such men as Lieutenant Colonel Ilges, captain 14th United States in- 
fantry, certifies to you as enlisted by him. He is recruiting at Hoboken, 
Inform Colonel Ilges of this order. This command is qiecial and confi- 
dential. 

"JAMES B. FRY, 

'■'■ Provost Marshal General, 
'•Captain H. J. Mills, 

" Provost Marshal Fifth District Neic Jersey." 

Between the first and ninth days of March Colonel Ilges received and 
mustered in fifty-four recruits. Of these, only three were enlisted with 
the understanding that they were ever to enter the service. The re- 
maining fifty-one were enlisted with the knowledge that they were 
notorious " bounty -jumpers," and as soon as enlisted suffered to escape 
by passing out of a back room in the office. Certificates, regular in 
form, were, from time to time, issued by Colonel Ilges, on account of 
such enlistments and muster, and delivered to Allen, Riley and Hughes, 
and by them sold to the authorities of Jersey City, which city received 
credit for the same. 

On the 10 th of March arrangements were made, in pursuance of the 
original plan, to arrest as bounty-jumpers all who might apply for en- 
listment or who might enlist at that office on that day. It was ex- 
pected that a large number — at least one thousand — might be thus 



276 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

secured. But the plot was discovered by the bounty- jum]3er8 in time 
to prevent its consummation to the extent anticipated, and only one 
hundred and eighty-three persons were thus arrested and secured. 
Upon these enlistments being made, Colonel Ilges, in pursuance of said 
orders from General Fry, issued certificates of their regular enlistments, 
delivered the same to Allen, Riley and Hughes, which they sold to the 
authorities of Jersey City, to be credited upon its quota. For these 
certificates of credit or enlistment the authorities of Jersey City paid 
Allen, Riley and Hughes $126,000. Of this sum, however, Colonel Ilges 
required, in conformity to the aforesaid "general order," the sum of 
|300 of the bounty money of each recruit to be deposited with him. 
In the cases of three out of 183 eo-called bounty- jumpers this was neg- 
lected. As respects all the others it was complied with, so as to leave 
from this source in the hands of Colonel Ilges the sum of $54,000. This 
money was at once deposited by Colonel Ilges in the Broadway National 
Bank, to await, as he says, the further order of the Provost Marshal 
General. 

The money was immediately claimed by Messrs. Allen, Riley and 
Hughes, under an alleged contract with General Fry. Colonel Ilges, 
however, did not assent to their claim. But in view of the fact that the 
men enlisted were then known to have been incarcerated at Fort La- 
fayette, and that no steps were likely to be taken to prove them deserters. 
Colonel Ilges claimed that if the men were held for service without 
being convicted of any desertion it should then go to them ; but if the 
men were proved to be deserters the United States treasury should 
receive the money, or, in case the credits should be disallowed, that the 
money ought to be refunded to the local authorities, who had paid it in 
good faith, and who would otherwise be defrauded by the act of the 
government itself. 

Colonel Ilges states that on his application to Messrs. Allen, Riley and 
Hughes to pay the balance of the $900 which they had failed to deposit, 
they told him it was unnecessary to do eo, as the whole amount in his 
hands ($54,000) would be paid back to them within a few days by 
order of the Provost Marshal General. 

On the 18th of March, 1865, while the payment of the fifty-four 
thousand dollars was suspended, and the question as to who was en- 
titled to receive it was pending, Theodore Allen, of the firm of Allen, 
Riley and Hughes, had an interview with General Fry, at the office of the 
latter, in the city of Washington. 

The account which Allen gives of the conversation which trans- 
pired at that interview, which your committee prefer to incorporate in 
the words of the witness, is as follows : 

" I sent in my card into the War Department. I first saw the 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 277 

messenger, who told me that General Fry could not be seen, as it was 
past the hour for receiving anybody. I told him it was very impor- 
tant that I should see General Fry, and if General Fry knew I was there 
he would see me. He took my card. I then saw General Fry and told 
him I had come in response to a letter or telegram from him to Colonel 
Baker, requesting me to come to Washington and call upon him. 

"Question. What did General Fry answer to that? Answer. He 
said ' yes ' ; that he had telegraphed to Colonel Baker that he wished to 
see me ; that he understood we had not been quite as successful in the 
Hoboken raid as we had expected. He then asked what had become of 
the money that had been received. I told him that I had it all, or the 
firm had it, with the exception of |54,000 that Colonel Ilges had re- 
tained. He asked me if Colonel Baker had ever asked me for any part 
of that money. I told him no, he had not, and that Colonel Ilges held 
154,000 of that money, and that I considered I was entitled to it through 
the agreement between General Fry, myself, and Colonel Baker, and 
that Colonel Ilges held it and would not pay it over till he was ordered 
to do so by General Fry, on the ground that the general order would 
not allow him to do so, unless General Fry ordered him to do so. He 
then said, ' That is all well ; we shall see about it. ' Said he, the matter 
I wanted to see you most about was with reference to recruiting affairs 
at Utica. I told him I was acquainted with a party named Burke and 
another named Richardson, who were doing recruiting business at 
Utica, and thought I could get all the information possible. He said he 
thought so too, and that he thought I was just the person to get all the 
information, and for that reason he had sent for me, because he would 
not trust any of Colonel Baker's officers. He said there appeared to be 
in Utica enormous frauds in the provost marshal's department as it was 
conducted by Captain Crandall, and that he wanted to get at these 
frauds ; that he had tried and had not been successful, and that he 
wished me to go to Utica. I told him I thought from what I had known 
of recruiting in Utica, and from what I had heard, that if he had found 
out any frauds in Utica I did not think they would implicate Captain 
Crandall, but would point more directly to Major Haddock. He said 
he did not want any evidence against Major Haddock, but against 
Captain Crandall, and he also wanted evidence that would implicate 
Mr. Conkling in the frauds, because he had set himself in opposition 
to him (General Fry) as the champion for Captain Crandall, and that he 
wished me to proceed immediately to Utica and get that evidence. He 
said he wished me to go to Utica and get evidence that would implicate 
Mr. Conkling in the frauds with Captain Crandall, at all hazards ; and 
while I was gone that he would order this money that Colonel Ilges held 
to be paid over to me. I told him it was better that it be paid to Riley, 



278 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

as he was the treasurer. He said the order should be made. That 
closed the conversation. I then left and went back to New York." 

On the 18th of March the following telegram was sent by General 
Fry to Colonel Baker : 

" War Department, Provost Marshal General's Bureau, 

"Washington, D. C, March 18, 1865. 
" Allen is here, and tells me he can provide information about the 
Utica district. I have told him to do so. He starts back to New York 
to-night, and will see you. Produce all the facts in that case. 

"JAMES B. FRY, 
' ' Provost Marshal General. 
" Colonel L. C. Baker, 

"■No. 12 Vesey street, New Yorlc'^ 

Colonel Ilges states that, having deposited the $54,000 in the bank 
on the loth of March, he proceeded, on the 17th of March, to Washing- 
ton city, and, in person, related to Provost Marshal General Fry all the 
details connected with the office at Hoboken, the capture of the 183 so- 
called bounty -jumpers, and the amount of money in his hands, asking, 
at the same time, for instructions in regard to the disposal of the money. 
To which General Fry replied that further orders would be sent by 
mail ; that he (Colonel Ilges) then expressed to General Fry his fear 
that, at some future day he might be called upon for explanations why 
he had, at his office at Hoboken, acted contrary to existing orders and 
regulations governing the mustering service, and that he intended to 
ask for a court of inquiry, when Provost Marshal General Fry assured 
him that he had done his duty well, and only obeyed orders. 

On the 19th of March he received the following despatch : 

" War Department, Provost Marshal Generals Office, 

" Washington, D. C, March 19, 1865. 
" Colonel: I am directed by the Provost Marshal General to in- 
form you that the credits of the men mustered by you March 11, 1865, 
at Hoboken, New Jersey, and credited to Jersey City at large, are disal- 
lowed, and that you will refund the money to the parties who ad- 
vanced it. 

" I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

•« W. OWENS, 
" Captain Gth United States Cavalry, A. A. A. O. 
"Brevet Lieut. Col. Gumo Ilges, U. S. A., 
"Mustering Orficer, IIohoTcen, Neto Jersey.'''' 

On the 2l3t of March the following communication was sent by 
Colonel Ilges to the Provost Marshal General : 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



279 



" Recruiting Service 14th Infantry, 
" 1G3 Jiester street, New York city, March 21, 18G5. 

" Captain : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
communication of March 19, 1865, informing me that the credits of 
men mustered by me March 11, 1865, at Hoboken, New Jersey, and 
credited to Jersey City at large, are disallowed, and instructing me to 
refund this money to the parties who advanced it. 

" I beg leave to state that no men were mustered by me on the 
aforesaid date, but I infer that this communication meant to say the 
10th instead of the 11th of March, 18G3. 

" I would respectfully state that on the said day four regulars were 
mustered by me, and that if their credits are not to be effected [affected] 
they should be excluded in the order. I mustered on the 10th day of March 
one hundred and eighty-three volunteers for three years, so-called 
bounty-jumpers, and they were credited to Jersey City at large, with 
the exception of fifteen recruits that were credited to Clinton township, 
Essex county, fourth congressional district, New Jersey. 

"I would further state that I have at my disposal $300 local 
bounty for each of these one hundred and eighty-three recruits, and 
that I received this amount from Allen, Riley & Co., who had contracted 
with the counties for these credits; and I would, therefore, respectfully 
request that you inform me whether or not I urn to refund this money to 
these parties, or to the proper rej)resenti dives of the classes who received the 
credits. 

"These one hundred and eighty- three recruits were properly 
mustered into the service by me, and I credited them according to in- 
structions and orders regulating the mustering service. None of these 
recruits have as yet been proven to have been credited before ; and 
when I gave these credits I did so as a United States officer, believing 
that I was doing my duty, and advancing the interests of the plan of 
Colonel Baker, sanctioned by the Provost Marshal General. I am in- 
formed that the county representatives who received these credits paid 
a large amount of premiums to Messrs. Allen, Riley & Co., besides the 
$300 local bounty ; and as they have done so after having been informed 
by me of the correctness of these credits, I would respectfully call your 
attention to the fact that when these credits are disallowed the said local- 
ities will lose a large amount of money paid out by them in good faith. 
I am not aware what amount of money was paid to Messrs. Allen, 
Riley & Co. for each recruit, and cannot even give a probable guess, as 
I only collected the usual amount from them — $300 for each recruit, 
this being the amount of bounty paid to a recruit enlisted at Hoboken, 
New Jersey. 

" I would here add that Messrs. Allen, Riley & Co. are the parties 



280 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



who carried out the plan above referred to, and I only allowed them to 
be present in my office, and to contract for these credits contrary to ex- 
isting orders, after I had been assured by Colonel L. C. Baker, special 
agent of the War Department, that the whole proceeding was sanc- 
tioned by the Provost Marshal General United States Army. 

" I therefore respectfully request that you inform me, at your 
earliest convenience, what disposition I am to make of the money re- 
ferred to. 

"I remain, captain, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

"GUIDOILGES 

" Capt. litli Infantry, Brevet Lieut, Col. Vols., Recruiting Officer. 
"Captain W. Owens, 

" 5tli U. S. Gai-alry, A. A. A. G., Washington, D. (7." 

In reply to this letter of the 31st, Colonel Ilges received on the 
24th of the same month the following reply : 

" War Department, Provost Marshal General's Bureau, 
" Washington, D. C, March 23, 1865. 
" Colonel: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
communication of the 21st instant, and, in reply, would state that the 
communication of the 19 th instant, referred to, was intended to cover 
the cases of the 183 so-called bounty-jumpers, and that the amount 
which you received for the purpose of paying bounties to these 183 so- 
called bounty- jumpers the Provost Marshal directs to be refunded to 
the parties who advanced it.'. 

" I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

«'W. OWENS, 
" Captain 5th JJ. S. Cavalry, A. A. A. G. 
" Brevet Lieut. Colonel Gumo Ilges, 

' * United States Army, Hester street, iV. 7." 
The suspicions of Allen, as he alleges, had been somewhat excited 
by the course of General Fry in the transaction between them, and he 
resolved, if possible, as he says, to circumvent him, and accordingly he 
communicated the result of his interview with General Fry to various 
parties at New York, and resolved not to go to Utica, but to wait at 
New York a sufficient time to induce in General Fry's mind a belief that 
he had in fact complied with his agreement, and then sent to him the 
following despatch : 
" No. 51. American Telegraph Company, 

" March 24, 1865. 

" Brigadier General Fry, 

" Provost Marshal General, Washington, I). C: 
" I have just returned from Utica, and Colonel Ilges refuses to de- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 281 

liver the money received from me because your order is dated the 11th 
instead of 10th of March. Please answer through Colonel Baker. 

"THEO. ALLEN. 
" Please write your address under your signature." 

On the same day the following telegram was sent by General Fry 
to Colonel Baker : 

[Original by telegraph.] 
" War Department, Provost Marshal General's Bureau, 

''Washington, I). C, March 24, 1865. 
" Colonel L. C. Baker, No. 12 Vesey street, IVew Torh city: 

" I have been informed by Theo. Allen, of New York, that Colonel 
Ilges declines to turn over the money received from the bounty-jump- 
ers on the 11th instant. I wish you to see Colonel Ilges and have him 
turn over this money as directed. 

"JAMES B. fry, 
i' Provost Marshal General.'''' 

On the 24th of March Messrs. Allen, Riley and Hughes, in company 
with a Mr. Stanley, called upon Colonel Ilges, demanded of him the 
$54,000, and upon his refusing to give up the money to them until he 
could see Colonel L. C. Baker and ask his advice in the matter, they 
threatened immediate legal proceedings to compel the delivery of the 
money. Colonel Ilges then called upon Colonel Baker at his office, but 
being unable to see him at that time, he proceeded to the office of the 
United States district attorney, D. L, Smith, esq., No, 12 Chambers 
street, and laid the case before one of the attorneys in his office, who 
advised him not to give up the money until he had further orders from 
Washington. He also consulted with several officers of the regular 
army then in the city, and was by them advised to the same effect. 

On the 25th of March, 18G1, Colonel Ilges was again sent for by 
Colonel L. C. Baker, and upon his arrival at Colonel Baker's office a 
telegraphic despatch was shown him by Colonel Baker from the Provost 
Marshal General, directing him to order Colonel Ilges to turn over the 
amount of money ($54,000) held by him as bounty for the 183 so-called 
bounty- jumpers to Messrs. Allen, Riley, & Co. After some hesitation 
Colonel Ilges then proceeded to the National Broadway Bank, accom- 
panied by Messrs. Allen, Riley, Hughes and Stanley, and there drew 
the following check : 
" No. 34. New York, March 25, 1865. 

" National Broadway Bank, fay to Messrs. Peter Riley Sc to., or leav- 
er, ffty-four thousand dollars. 

" $54,000. " GUIDO ILGES, 

''Capt. Utk U. S. Inf., Bet. Lt. Col. U. S. A., Recruiting Officer.' ' 



282 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

This check was then handed to Peter Riley in the presence of the 
others, and he presented it to the paying teller of the said bank, and re- 
ceived the $54,000 in payment of the same. 

On the 25 th of March General Fry sent the following despatch to 
Colonel Baker : 

" Provost Marshal General's Bureau, 

"Washington, D. C, March 25, 1865. 
" Colonel L. C. Baker, New Tori:.: 

" You must prepare all the facts in the case of the Utica district, 
without reference to Major Luddington's report. It is absolutely nec- 
essary for me to have them, whether Major Luddington has been able to 
obtain them or not. See Allen and let him make it bis business to 
straighten this matter out. 

"JAMES B. FRY, 
" Provost Marshal General.''^ 

It was charged against General Fry, by Mr. Conkling, that the mo- 
tives of the former in his action in regard to the Utica district were to 
be found in his relations with Major John A. Haddock, who was en- 
gaged in fraudulent practices at Elmira, from which it suited the policy 
of General Fry to divert public attention by the prosecution of the al- 
leged frauds at Utica. It appeared from the evidence before your com- 
mittee that, some time prior to the transactions at Hoboken referred to. 
Major John A. Haddock, acting assistant provost marshal for the west- 
ern district of New York, had been suspected of the most flagrant and 
corrupt violations of official duty. Detailed reports of specific acts of 
official dishonesty committed by him had been made to General Fry in 
writing on several occasions. One by Edward Meloy, dated February 
3, 1865, and another by Peter A. La France, dated February 28, 1865. 
Two of the alleged accomplices of Haddock in the fraudulent practices 
reported, named Webell and Dalton, were arrested and afterwards sent 
to the penitentiary. Haddock himself, however, was not then arrested 
nor relieved from duty. But on the 15th day of March, 1865, Colonel 
L. C. Baker telegraphed to Provost Marshal General Fry to the effect 
that he had discovered most astounding enlistment frauds at Elmira, 
with which Major Haddock was connected. Soon afterwards Major 
Haddock was arrested by order of the Secretary of War, a court-mar- 
tial was convened in his case, and Hon. Roscoe Conkling authorized by 
the War Department to represent the government at his trial. 

If there be any circumstances in the testimony which are suscep- 
tible of further explanation, either by General Fry or Colonel Baker, 
(to both of whom many of the statements relate, ) your committee have 
not had the benefit of their knowledge, as neither appeared as a witness 
in the case. As your committee have already explained, their investi- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



283 



gation of the matters with which they have been charged by the order 
of the House has thus far been confined to that branch of the case re- 
lating to the charges made by General Fry against the honorable 
Roscoe Conkling, leaving tlie other branch of the case relating to the 
charges made by the honorable Roscoe Conkling against the Provost 
Marshal General untouched. Whatever evidence there may be con- 
tained in the report of jour committee which may raise a question 
touching the management of the Provost Marshal General's bureau has 
been admitted solely on account of its supposed relation to the motives 
of General Fry in the publication of his charges against Mr. Conkling, 
as has already been explained. So far, therefore, as the committee 
have deemed it pertinent for that purpose they have heard and con- 
sidered it, and for no other. It would be premature and might work 
injustice if your committee at this stage of their investigation were to 
pronounce afJirmatively in advance uiDon a branch of the case only 
collaterally introduced, and still further to be heard and considered. 
Your committee therefore refrain altogether from expressing their judg- 
ment upon the guilt or innocence of General Fry on the charge of the 
alleged coiTupt bargain with Allen and his connexion with the Hobo- 
ken enlistments. 

They refrain also from any expression of their opinion as to the 
credit to be attached to the testimony of Tlieodore Allen, (a witness 
sought to be impeached by the party against whom he was called,) nor 
does your committee undertake to say at this time how far the testi- 
mony of the said Allen is corroborated and sustained by the other testi- 
mony in the case. So far, however, as any of the evidence before your 
committee bears upon the point for the illustration of which it was ad- 
mitted they have not failed fully to consider it. Whatever relative 
weight has been attached by your committee to the various testimony 
in the cause which brought them to their conclusion in reference to the 
motives of General Fry in writing the Blaine letter, it cannot be im- 
portant at this time to announce, since their conclusion on that point is 
not equivocal, and is the unanimous judgment of the committee. 

The following copies of what purport to be two letters— one by 
Colonel L. C. Baker, and the other by General Fry — appear in a 
printed argument by Hon. A. G. Riddle, which has been laid upon the 
tables of the members of this House : 

' ' Office Special Agency War Department, 

"iVf'W Yorlc, March 16. 1865. 
"Sir: Since the capture of the bounty -jumpers at Hoboken, re- 
peated applications have been made to me to have said jumpers credited 
to the State of New Jersey. Colonel Ilges, the mustering officer, ap- 



284 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

plied to me, before going to Washington last week, to make applica- 
tion to you to have said jumpers so credited. I informed him that I 
did not think these men could or would be credited, advising him 
(Colonel Ilges) to apply to you for the lequired instructions or per- 
mission. 

"On Tuesday last, while in Washington, and after my conversa- 
tion with you on the subject referred to above, I received a telegram 
from Colonel Uges, requesting me to obtaui permission to make these 
credits. This telegram I made no reply to. On my return to New 
York yesterday morning I heard that Colonel Ilges had made the credits. 
I sent for him and asked him by whose order or direction he had done 
so. He referred me to your telegram of March 5, addressed to Captain 
H. J. Mills, provost marshal at Newark, New Jersey, for his authority. 
I informed him (Colonel Ilges) that I did not think that you intended, 
by the telegram referred to, to convey any order or airthority to Captain 
Mills to credit bounty- jumpers and deserters; that your telegram was 
intended to only authorize the crediting of such men as were regularly 
and legitimately enlisted previous to the Friday on which it was un- 
derstood that none but jumpers and deserters were to be enlisted. I have 
advised Colonel Ilges to go to Washington to-night, and to make such 
explanations in reference to this matter as you may require. These ex- 
planations I trust will be satisfactory. 

' ' I am, general, very respectfully yours, 

" L. C. BAKER, 
' ' Colonel ami Special Agent War Department, 

" Brig. Gen. James B. Fry, 

'■'■ Provost Marshal General JJ. S., Washington, D. C, 

A true copy : 

' ' GEO. E. SCOTT, 
^^ Brevet Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Volunteers.^ ^ 



" War Department, Provost Marshal General' s Bureau, 

" Washington, D. C, March 29, 1865. 

' ' Colonel : By the course of things in reference to bounty- jumj)- 
ers taken at Hoboken, Mayor Cleveland, of Newark, is placed in a very 
unfortunate position. If possible, he should be relieved from it. 
Under date of March 23 I directed Colonel Ilges to retvrrTi the money in 
his possession to the parities who advanced it as bounties for these men, 
the credits for them being disallowed, and the money still in his posses- 
sion. It seems that under this order, reported by telegraph to you on 
the 34th of March, Colonel Ilges has delivered the money in whole or 
part to Theodore Allen, broker, and perhaps to some other brokers, and 
that Mayor Cleveland is unable to regain possession of it. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



285 



' ' The proper method of disposing of this business has all the time 
seemed to me plain enough; it is this: to allow no credits for the 
bounty -jumpers, men who have already been enlisted and credited 
several times over, but to credit any, if there be any, who are honajicle 
recruits, and not jumpers. To return to the town authorities all the 
money they advanced on account of men whom we do not credit. 

" I intended my order to carry out the above view, but it seems 
that the money advanced by Newark has been returned to Allen, the 
broker; perhaps it Avas turned over to Colonel llges, through Allen, 
and on this account he returns it in the same way. However that may 
be, Allen should return the money to Newark, and I desire you to see 
Allen and tell him so. Neither he nor any one else has any right to 
profit in the matter. All necessary expenses connected with the arrest 
of these jumpers, and the enlistment of such as are proper recruits, 
must be paid by the United States, so that there is no loss for individ- 
uals in the case. 

'• Please report to me as soon as practicable on the adjustment of 
this affair. 

' ' You had better send for Mayor Cleveland also. 

' ' Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

' ' JAMES B. FRY, 
" Provoit Marslial General. 

"Colonel L. C. Baker, 

" iVc. 12 Vesey street, New York city. 

A true copy : " GEORGE E. SCOTT, 

"■ Brevet Lieutenant Colonel U. S. I'wZs." 

The opening argument in the summing up before the committee 
was made orally on behalf of General Fry by Mr. Riddle, and was re- 
ported by one of the reporters of the House. To this Mr. Conkling re- 
plied. ]\Ir. Riddle rejoined in an oral argument, but which was not 
reported, and he had leave of the committee to reduce to writing this 
rejoinder, confining it to the argument actually delivered, this to be 
reported to the Ilduse along with the other arguments in the case. 

No member of the committee has any recollection of either of these 
two letters being either given in evidence in the case, or alluded to in 
any part of the argument ; and no member of the committee has any 
recollection of ever seeing the original of either of these letters, and 
neither of them has yet been furnished to the committee. The first 
knowledge which any member of the committee had, so far as can be 
recollected, of either letter, was after writing the foregoing part of 
this report, and upon seeing the printed argument of Mr. Riddle. The 
committee understand it to be now claimed by the counsel for Mr. 
Conkling that these letters were not offered in evidence, nor alluded to 



286 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

in the argument, and doubts are expressed to the committee as to the 
authenticity of one or both. General Fry's counsel insist that these 
letters were given in evidence and commented upon. Since the com- 
mittee's attention has thus been called to them, their effect in the case 
(treating them as authentic) has been, by your committee, carefully 
considered, and they do not change any conclusions submitted in this 
report to which your committee had come befoi-e they were seen. 
These letters never having been in the possession of any member of the 
committee, the committee cannot, of course, make any decision what- 
ever as to whether these alleged copies are copies of genuine letters of 
the dates they bear; but the committee submit these alleged copies 
with this explanation, that the House and all parties may have the 
benefit of them. 

Your committee report to the House the argument of Mr. Riddle, 
as jjrinted by him, with the above statement, as to its correspondence 
with the argument made to the committee. They do this because the 
committee are not willing to deprive General Fry of any fact or argu- 
ment in his defence which he may desire to bring to the attention of 
the House to influence its action, although it may not have been sub- 
mitted to the committee during its deliberations. No injustice, so far 
as the results of the committee's action is concerned, can be done to Mr. 
Conkling by this course as the committee came to no conclusion as to 
the subject-matter of these letters which is adverse to him. 

Your committee have refrained frcnn making any recommenda- 
tion as to proceedings by the House against General Fry for this breach 
of its privileges. The reasons for this are in part to be found in the 
circumstances connected with the introduction of General Fry's letter 
into this house by one of its members. The committee doubted whether 
the House would be inclined, or ought to adopt, any further proceed- 
ings against General Fry touching this violation of its privileges, ex- 
cept in connexion with the examination of Mr. Blaine's relations to 
this matter. The latter is wholly outside of the powers of your com- 
mittee. 

Besides, all of the facts, and also the conclusions of law and fact 
derived therefi'om which bear upon the question of the propriety of any 
further proceedings touching this breach of its privileges, are by your 
committee here submitted to the House; and hence the House will 
have no difficulty in deciding what its action should be in this regard,, 
and would not be assisted by any mere opinion or recommendation of 
the committee upon a question lying so peculiarly within the limits 
of the discretion of the House, and to be determined by its sense of fit- 
ness. 

The execution of that part of the order of the House in relation to 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 287 

the charges against General Fry and his bureau will involve an enor- 
mous amount of labor and of expense, and can be properly performed 
only by a committee having a competent clerk and phonographic re- 
porter, and having leave to sit at the places where the witnesses reside, 
and during the sessions of the House, and also during the recess of 
Congress. Whether, now that the war is over, the public good to be 
attained by these investigations will compensate for the large expense 
they will involve, is a consideration which should receive the attention 
of the House. 

Your committee, having fully and carefully considered the charges 
against the Hon. Roscoe Conkling contained in the letter of General 
Fry, are unanimously of opinion that none of the charges in the letter, 
whether made directly and openly, or indirectly and covertly, have 
any foundation in truth, and that the conduct of Mr. Conkling in re- 
lation to each of the matters investigated by the committee has been 
above reproach, and that no circumstances sufficient to excite reasona- 
ble suspicion have arisen which could justify or excuse the attack made 
upon him in the letter of General Fry. 

The several charges against the Hon. Roscoe Conkling, contained 
in the letter of General Fry, being unsupported by the testimony in any 
one material particular, although ample opportunity was afforded, at 
the cost of much time and expense, to enable the wi-iter of that letter 
to furnish his proofs, the committee ought not to refrain from the ex- 
pression of their condemnation ot the deliberate act of a public func- 
tionary in traducing the official as well as the personal character of a 
member of the House of Representatives of the United States by the pub- 
lication of a libel which he was so illy prepared to sustain. Indignities 
offered to the character or proceedings of the national legislature by li- 
bellous assaults have been resented and punished both in England and 
the United States as breaches of privilege ; and such assaults upon the 
official character of members have been held punishable as indignities 
committed against the House itself. The reason for this rests upon 
the same gi-ound as that which justifies the exercise of similar authority 
to punish for attempts by personal violence, menaces, or bribes, to in- 
fluence the conduct of members in their official capacity. 

Your committee deem it proper most earnestly to protest against 
the practice which has obtained, to some extent, of causing letters 
from persons not members of the House to be read as a part of a per- 
sonal explanation, in which the motives of members are criticised, 
their conduct censured, and they are called to answer for words spoken 
in debate. Such attacks upon members, made in the House itself, 
and published in its proceedings, and scattered broadcast to the world 
at the expense of the government, are, in the opinion of your commit- 



288 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

tee. an improper check upon the freedom of debate, a violation of the 
privileges, and an infraction of the dignity of the House. 

Your committee submit, for the consideration of tlie House, the 
following resolutions, and recommend their adoption : 

Resohed, That all the statements contained in the letter of General 
James B. Fry to Hon. James G. Blaine, a member of this House, bear- 
ing date the 27th of April, A.D. 1866, and which was read in this 
House on the 30th of April, A.D. 1866, in so far as such statements 
impute to the Hon. Roscoe Conkling, a member of this House, any 
criminal, illegal, unpatriotic, or otherwise improper conduct or mo- 
tives, either as to the matter of his procuring himself to be employed 
by the government of the United States in the prosecution of military 
offences in the state of New York, in the management of such prose- 
cutions, in taking compensation therefor, or in any other charge, are 
wholly without foundation in truth; and for their publication there 
were, in the judgment of this House, no facts connected with said pros- 
ecutions furnishing either a palliation or an excuse. 

Hesolved, That General Fry, an officer of the government of the 
United States, and head of one of its military bureaus, in writing and 
publishing these accusations named in the preceding resolution, and 
which, owing to the crimes and wrongs which they impute to a mem- 
ber of this body, are of a nature deeply injurious to the official and 
personal character, influence, and privileges of such member, and their 
publication originating, as in the judgment of the House they did, in 
no misapprehension of facts, but in the respntment and passion of their 
author, was guilty of a gross violation of the privileges of such mem- 
ber and of tliis House, and his conduct in that regard merits and re- 
ceives its unqualified disapprobation. 

SAMUEL SHELLABARGER, 

Chairman, 
W. WINDOM. 
B. M. BOYER. 
B. C. COOK. 

samuel l. warner. 

Provost Marshal's Bureau — again. 
Mr. Spalding. By the indulgence of the chair 
man of the committee, I beg leave to present to the 
House the memorial of Mr. Riddle, counsel for General 
Fry, together with a portion of the evidence which he 
claims was oifered to the committee by General Fry, 



CONKLIXG AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 289 

wliicli he asks may be made a part of the record in the 
case. 

The Speaker. Unanimous consent is necessary. 

Mr. Hale. I object. 

Mr. Stevens. I certainly object. It would be 
outside of all precedent. 

Mr. Spalding. Very well ; I have discharged my 
duty. 

Mr. Shellaharger. I will make a statement to the 
House in regard to those papers. Since the committee 
made its report to the House its attention has been 
invited to the papers which have been referred to by 
my colleague, and they have received the attention of 
the committee. Although the papers are not before 
the House, I desire, in justice to the committee, to 
make a statement in reference to the matter. These 
papers relate in the main to the Hoboken matter, a 
matter upon which the committee has not passed in 
its findings, except so far as it might throw light upon 
the animus of the letter to Mr. Blaine. The introduc- 
tion and consideration of those papers, therefore, could 
not affect any conclusion to which the committee came, 
except in regard to the motives for writing that letter. 
There is, outside of these papers, what the committee 
deemed abundant evidence to settle the question of the 
animus of the letter and to brine; the committee unani- 
mously to the conclusion which it attained as to the 
motives which prompted the writing of that letter ; so 
that, while the committee's attention was not drawn 
to these papers, they thus considered the matter of 
their contents, and determined nothing contained in 
them in any possible view of this case affecting any 
conclusion to which the committee came. 



290 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



Another statement I Lave to make is, that those 
letters, if they are of value to General Fry, will be 
available for his defense in the further prosecution of 
this matter, should the House deem any further prose- 
cution proper under the resolution already adopted. 
So that it seems to me in no view can any prejudice 
be worked to General Fry by the exclusion for the 
present of these letters. 

Another statement I desire here to make is, that 
the two letters deemed most material by the counsel 
for General Fry, the only two, if I remember correctly, 
which he deemed of value enough to insert in his 
printed argument, are now introduced into the report 
of the committee, perhaps irregularly, but introduced 
in extreme solicitude that nothing should be excluded 
that could be of service to General Fry. That matter 
is fully explained in the report of the committee. As 
I have said, the two principal letters contained in this 
memorial now appear in the report of the committee. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, the House has heard, or had 
an opportunity of hearing, a large portion of this re- 
port. The committee felt forced to make it volumi- 
nous, as it is, on account of the impossibility of making 
it less voluminous and yet presenting fairly and justly 
the facts bearing on this important question of the 
privileges of the House, and of a member of it. 

I trust, Mr. Speaker, I will not be deemed in doing 
what I am about to do as neglecting the execution of 
the duties which I owe to this important question of 
privilege in omitting to detain the House in again pre- 
senting what has been fully represented in the report 
of the committee. I say I will refrain from the dis- 



CONKLING AND BLAIXE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



291 



cussion of this question at this time. Unless some- 
thing shall be said by other members of the House 
requiring notice I shall content myself by yielding the 
floor and permitting any other gentleman who may 
wish to do so to speak to this question. I shall ask the 
House to second the previous question so that we shall 
fix the time for closing debate, disposing of the case 
to-day. If there be no member who desires to be 
heard, I ask the House at once to order the main 
question. 

Mr. Davis. I ask the gentleman to yield to me. 

Mr. Shellaharger. For whatever time the gentle- 
man wants. 

Mr. Davis. Mr. Speaker, I shall occupy but a 
few moments in submitting to the House one or two 
considerations connected with the subject before us. 
I shall not enlarge upon the evidence, or upon the 
clear, able, and conclusive report founded upon it, ex- 
onerating completely and entirely the reputation of 
my colleague [Mr. Conldhicj\ from the gross aspersions 
cast upon it in the communication which the com- 
mittee have with entire unanimity pronounced a false 
and malicious libel. 

The question, Mr. Speaker, is one of grave im- 
portance, affecting the right of a member of this House 
to utter his sentiments and opinions in respect to the 
action of any public officer or the administration of 
any Department of the Government, legitimately be- 
fore the House, without being confronted by a libel 
upon his private or public character, read at the Clerk's 
desk at the suggestion of a member upon the floor. 
I am happy this investigation has been ordered by the 



292 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

House, anc] I trust the report of tlie committee has had 
a due effect on the House, and that the action of the 
committee in reference to the assault against the 
character of my honorable colleague [Mr. ConMing\ 
will meet with its unanimous approval. I know not 
why this House should listen with any other feelings 
than those of perfect indignation at the attempt made 
by an officer of the Government to assail the character 
of a member of this House for commenting on the 
manner in which that officer discharged his public 
duties. 

What is the history of the matter ? In legitimate 
debate on the section of the Army bill relating to the 
Provost Marshal's Bureau, the honorable member from 
New York [Mr. ConMing'] made some remarks to 
which the Provost Marshal General took exceptions. 
In answer, not by way of legitimate argument on the 
subject before the House, the gentleman from Maine 
had a letter from General Fiy read at the desk con- 
taining the grossest charges against the honorable 
member from New York [Mr. ConMing'] involving 
personal turpitude and corruption, as well as mal- 
feasance in office. These charges were such as, if true, 
would subject my colleague [Mr. Conhling'] to de- 
served reproach, and to the loss of public or private 
confidence. They have been carefully and patiently 
investigated by the committee ; abundant time was 
offered to establish their truth, and yet the author of 
these grave charges failed signally either to prove or 
even attempt to prove that he was sustained by one 
single fact in justification. 

The important inquiry arises, Mr. Speaker, 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



293 



whether members are thus to be assailed by persons 
outside of the House for words uttered in legitimate 
debate in the House, affecting the action of any public 
officer or the administration of any department or 
bureau of the Government. If such a precedent shall 
be established, I see no end to these libellous attacks 
springing from what any member may deem it his 
duty to utter in regard to the action of any public 
officer. 

But I wish to call attention to anothei' considera- 
tion connected with this subject. The letter of Gen- 
eral Fry was addressed to a member of this House, 
and at the instance of that member it was read at the 
Clerk's desk in vindication of remarks before made by 
him upon the relations existing between Mr. Conkling 
and General Fry. I do not believe that any member 
of the House has the right for any such purpose to 
send up to the Clerk's desk a letter from a third 
party containing libellous matter affecting another 
member, and to ask that it be read to the House and 
circulated, through the Globe, over the country. If 
this be not a breach of privilege, I am unable to say 
what is. If it be not, any party designing it may pub- 
lish the most offensive and impi'oper matter in respect 
to a member and yet screen himself from liability on 
the ground that he was using information im- 
parted by another and incorporating into his speech, 
and thus spreading a libel upon the permanent records 
of the country. If we admit that principle, then, as I 
said before, there is no end to the libels which may be 
read here against members for the expression of their 
opinions in this Hall. 



!94 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



Mr. Woodhridge. I desire to ask my frieud 
whether he thinks it quite proper or dignified for any 
member of this House, in discussing a public question, 
to bring into discredit the name of a public officei", 
when that officer has no chance upon the fl^oor of the 
House to defend himself. 

Mr. Davis. I will answer my friend. For the 
very reason that the parties are public officers, that 
they are charged with the duties of official administra- 
tion, that they are servants of the Government, and 
that Congress has not only the right, but is bound to 
examine into their action, I aver that a member may 
rightfully criticise it. I say it involves no breach of 
privilege, and no discourtesy, for any member of this 
House to speak in regard to the conduct of a public 
officer of this Government legitimately -before it for 
consideration in such terms as he may think proper. 

If charges were made by my colleague against the 
admiuisti'ation by General Fvy of the affairs of the 
Provost Marshal's Bureau, he, as an officer of the 
Army, charged with malfeasance in a military duty, 
had a right to demand from the War Department a 
court of inquiry to investigate his conduct. He has 
here a perfect redress ; or he might have appealed to 
this House, demanding that a committee be charged 
with the examination of the alleged malfeasance, and 
that the author of the charges be required to substan- 
tiate them or retract them. Sir, the very necessities 
of the public service I'equire that the Representatives 
of the people shall be untrammelled upon this floor in 
their criticisms upon the actions of the public servants; 
and if the lips of members are to be sealed in respect 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FBY CONTROVERSY 



295 



to official administration, 1 know not in what way 
the public are to be informed on subjects of the deep- 
est general interest, in connection with which indi- 
vidual agents and officers may merit either censure or 
praise. 

But, sir, my object is not to enter into detail upon 
the facts of this case so abundantly reported, but 
rather to ascertain, by some appropriate mode of in- 
quiry, what are the restrictions which should be al- 
lowed or imposed upon this practice of presenting 
letters containing libellous matter to be read as part of 
debate in this House. Therefore, at a proper time, 
now or hereafter, I will offer a resolution simply ask- 
ing an investigation by the same committee as to the 
fact whether any breach of privilege has been com- 
mitted by any acts of this kind in the introduction of 
any such letter by any person. And I am induced to 
do that more from the consideration that I believe we 
must put our foot upon this practice or we must be 
involved in these interminable difficulties and personal 
explanations. I wish to say that I do this without 
any sort of disrespect to any member upon this floor, 
without any personal feeling whatever, but from a sole 
desire to preserve that order and decorum in this House 
which should belong to its deliberations. 

Mr. Hale. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to dis- 
cuss the report of this committee or the resolutions 
submitted by them, but I simply seek the floor in con- 
sequence of my colleague [Mr. Davi8\ having intimated 
that he would move a resolution of reference as to the 
rights of the House, and the rights of members of the 
House, in regard to the publication of libels like that 



296 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



reported upon by the committee ; and I rise for the 
purpose of suggesting to my colleague that when he 
offers that resolution he make it a little more compre- 
hensive, so as to cover another branch of this case, 
which has come to my knowledge within the last two 
days. The report of the committee has been exhaus- 
tive of the subject committed to it so far as affects the 
charges brought against my colleague in the libellous 
letter which was read at the Clerk's desk. 

Since the hearing before the committee was tei^m- 
inated and since their report was made to the House, 
I have received through the mail, and I understand 
other members have received the same document, a 
pamphlet bearing the printed signature of James B. 
Fry, whom I understand to be this same Provost Mar- 
shal General Fry, purporting to be instructions by Mr. 
Fry to his counsel for his defense before this commit- 
tee. It strikes me as a little singular that the private in- 
structions of the person on trial to his counsel for the 
defense should be printed and circulated among the 
body which was to pass upon the subject after the 
counsel had been heard in full before the committee, 
and his argument printed for the benefit of the House. 
In that pamphlet I find this very remarkable language, 
which I think involves, if possible, a higher breach of 
privilege even than the original one. For bear in 
mind that this is printed, or at least circulated, after 
the report of the committee, falsifying the original 
charge. 

This pamphlet says : 

" Of the principal charges [contained in my letter] I maintain 
and reassert not only the substantial but the literal correctness. ' ' 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



297 



111 other words, after a fair trial and examination 
before a committee, with every opportunity afforded 
him to maintain his original charges, and utterly fail- 
ing to produce any evidence whatever to maintain 
them, a pamphlet is here circulated in which the orig- 
inal libel is reasserted in its full length and breadth, 
and in all its details. I submit that there is a ques- 
tion of privilege for the examination, consideration, 
and action of this House. 

Another word in regard to this document. It 
states by way of preface that this was a letter of in- 
structions which was addressed by General Fry to his 
counsel, Hon. A. G. Riddle, made in compliance with 
the requirements of the committee. If that were so 
truthfully, of course these instructions would be privi- 
leged, as long as confined to their pi'oper and legiti- 
mate use, but not when published for the reading of 
anybody besides the counsel. But most singularly 
Mr. Riddle, in his argument as the counsel for General 
Fry, states to the committee that he has had no oppor- 
tunity of consulting with his client and has received 
no instructions from him, oral or written, except upon 
a single point, while these instructions cover the whole 
case. If rhe counsel told the truth in his statement to 
the committee, it would appear that this officer of the 
Army of the United States was not only guilty of 
publishing a libel, and a pronounced libel, on a mem- 
ber of the House, but was guilty of doing it on the 
false pretense that it was originally prepared and sent 
forth as instructions to counsel when it was not the 
fact, and when no such instructions had been issued. 

I therefore ask my colleague [Mr. Davis,^ when 



298 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

he introduces his resolution to inquire into the rights 
of members, to include the question whether the 
House shall submit to such publications as that con- 
tained in the pamphlet which I hold in my hand. 

Mr. Shellaharger. The gentleman from New 
York has brought to the attention of the House this 
letter of General Fry, and it seems to be proper that 
I should allude to his statements contained in that 
letter. The first is a statement that a request was 
made by General Fry to the investigating committee 
for the privilege of preparing and submitting by him- 
self or by his counsel a written plea, which request 
was not granted. 

Now, I really cannot conceive what it is that that 
statement refers to unless it be this : that at the time 
we began to examine this case, on the first morning of 
our meeting. General Fry applied to be permitted to 
make a written statement to the committee, introduc- 
ing his case and his evidence, the written statement 
to be unsworn. He was met by a statement that any 
evidence that was to be considered by the committee 
must come in the usual way as clearly and properly 
authenticated papers or the sworn testimony of wit- 
nesses, and that he would be required to present any 
showing against a member of the House in that way. 
Nothing else occurred excluding General Fry from 
the very largest latitude in presenting all the views 
of his counsel and of himself upon every possible 
question. Excluding myself from the compliment, I 
may say that the committee was a miracle of patience 
in the way of admitting and hearing arguments and 
testimony on both sides. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 299 

And there is another statement here that is 
equally singular, considering all the circumstances of 
the case. It is on the first page of this pamphlet. 
He says : 

"I formally applied to the committee for a copy of the record, 
the testimony having been phonographically reported, and offered to 
pay the expenses of transcribing it, but was refused." 

Now it will occur to every member of the House 
that it would be a very singular request to make of a 
committee of this House, whose proceedings are con- 
fidential and not to be disclosed except by the leave 
of the House, that it should be required to permit its 
evidence to go out into the town, into the oflices of 
lawyers, and to be hawked about the streets. Of 
course the committee would not permit the evidence 
to be taken from the custody of the committee or of 
its clerk. The request was made to be permitted to 
take copies of the evidence. The request was met by 
a statement that the evidence could not be taken from 
the control of the committee or the custody of its 
clerk ; but the very fullest opportunity should be had 
at all times to use the evidence in the committee 
room, and under the supervision and care of the clerk, 
he seeing to it that the proper orders and directions 
of the House were observed in that regard. And I 
am surprised that a statement of the character I have 
read should be made, under all the circumstances, by 
General Fry. 

Mr. Stevens. As the evidence has not been read, 
I desire to know whether I understand the purport of 
it. I desire to inquire whether, when General Fry 
was offered to be examined, he or his counsel insisted 



300 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

that lie should be called by the committee, so that he 
could not be prosecuted. 

Mr. Shellaharger. In reply to the inquiry of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens\ I will 
state this : The committee, as has already been noticed, 
have confined their investigations for the present to 
the question of privilege affecting the rights of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Conkling']. The 
committee so confining its investigations deemed it 
fair and propei' that the gentleman from New York 
should be permitted to control the matter of the intro- 
duction of testimony affecting his personal privileges, 
subject, of course, to the right of the committee to 
take care of the rights and privileges of the House. 
Taking that view of the matter, the committee did 
not feel at liberty to call, as they might have done, 
General Fry upon the motion of the committee itself. 
They declined to do that for the reason that they 
deemed it just and proper to the gentleman from New 
York, this being a question so personal to himself, to 
allow him to control the introduction or the non- 
introduction of the testimony of General Fry. That 
was the position of the committee. Of course the 
committee might have called, upon its own motion. 
General Fry as a witness. It did not do so for the 
reason I have stated. 

Then the committee had this question before 
them : The recjuest was formally made and put upon 
the record that the gentleman from New York should 
be permitted to cross-examine General Fry. An appeal 
was made to the committee that it should put General 
Fry in the position of a witness for cross-examination, 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 301 

and not have liim made the witness of the gentleman 
from New York, the gentleman from New York stat- 
ing distinctly that he declined to put himself in the 
position of calling General Fry, so as that thereby he 
should be precluded from contradicting or impeaching 
any evidence he might give. After that appeal was 
thus formally made to the committee, and the commit- 
tee had refused to permit General Fry to be cross- 
examined, requiring Mr. Conkling, if he desired to 
use the testimony of General Fry, to call him, and put 
him in the position of a witness called by himself, 
then an appeal was made to the other side to 
know whether General Fry was to be examined ; 
and an invitation that he should be examined as a 
witness for the other side was repeatedly made. But 
that invitation was all the time declined, and Mr. 
Conkling was deprived of the benefit of the examina- 
tion of General Fry unless he would call him as his 
own witness. 

Mr. Stevens. Did the counsel of General Fry join 
in declining? 

Mr. Shellaharger. That is my understanding of 
the matter. 

Mr. Stevens. The explanations made by the com- 
mittee are ample ; they require no further vindication, 
if any was necessary, of their course. It was, perhaps, 
unfortunate that this letter was not addressed at once 
to the House, instead of coming; throucrh a member of 
the House, for then I suppose it would have become 
a part of the records of the House. I understand that 
the letter is not now on the Joui'nal of the House. 



302 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

If that be so, it will preclude the motion which I 
would otherwise be disposed to make. 

The Speaker. It is in the Globe, but not on the 
Journal, 

Mr. Stevens. The inquiry instituted, the appoint- 
ment of this committee, did not bring the letter upon 
the Journal ? 

The Speaker. It did not. 

Mr. Stevens. Then I cannot make the motion I 
would have made. All I have to say is that I do not 
know that a more causeless, gross attack has ever been 
made upon a member of this House, either here or 
elsewhere, than that contained in that letter. I must 
do the gentleman from Maine [Mr. JBlaine~\, now 
absent, the justice to suppose that he was entirely 
uninformed of the contents of the letter or he would 
never have presented it to the House. 

I had hope, however, that the committee would 
go a little further. In reference to one of the transac- 
tions mentioned in the report — the Hoboken matter; I 
believe — in which some hundreds of thousands of dol- 
lars were absorbed by somebody, there were, if the 
evidence is to be believed, three parties implicated. 
Two of them, I believe, are now in the jDenitentiary. 
The third is General Fry. Why is it that some steps 
have not been taken by the committee to send him 
there ? It is possible that the committee had not the 
power. But after the exposure which has been 
made it seems to me that it is the duty of the law 
officers of the Government to prosecute him ; and un- 
less the evidence contained in this book can be dis- 
proved he should be convicted and confined in the 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 303 

penitentiary. I cannot conceive any reason why there 
should not be at once instituted a proceeding for the 
prosecution of General Fry. This would give him an 
opportunity to vindicate himself in some other way 
than by posthumous letters. I suppose, however, the 
committee did not feel themselves authorized to take 
action with a view to the prosecution of General Fry. 

Mr. Raymond. I would like to make a sugges- 
tion to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. In referring 
to the case in which two of the parties implicated are 
now in the penitentiary, the gentleman spoke of it as 
the Hoboken matter. T believe it was the Elmira 
case. 

Mr. Stevens. I believe the gentleman is correct. 
I happened to see the name of the other case here and 
was misled by it. The case I meant to refer to was the 
Elmira fraud. 

Mr. Shellaharger. Mr. Speaker, I will state to the 
House — I would not have stated it but for the inquiry 
just presented by the gentleman from Pennsylvania — 
why the committee, after having found a flagrant vio- 
lation of the privileges of a member of the House and 
of the House itself, stopped without recommending 
any proceeding by the House against the culprit. The 
inquiry is very pertinent, one which would naturally 
occur to every mind, and one which received the care- 
ful attention of the committee. 

The committee did not deem it outside of the 
powers conferred upon it by the resolution to recom- 
mend such proceedings against General Fry as the 
House might deem to be due in the premises. The 
committee reports to the House its reason for omitting 



804 OONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

to present any formal resolution upon that subject. 
I will state those reasons. The first, which is not 
stated in the report, is this : General Fry being con- 
nected with the Gov^ernment and a member of the 
Executive Department thereof, any proceeding by this 
House would be communicated to the President of the 
United States, laying the facts before him. At any 
rate this is the judgment of a majority of the commit- 
tee. Now, sir, a communication to the President of 
the United States, laying before him the facts in re- 
gard to this matter, might now be made by the House. 
The committee has said in the report that this is a 
matter resting so peculiarly within the discretion of 
the House, a matter so peculiarly proper to be de- 
cided by its sense of fitness, that a mere recommenda- 
tion or opinion of the committee would not be useful 
to the House. The committee has done everything 
else than simply express its opinion ; I mean that it 
has done everything in its power toward aiding the 
House in coming to a just conclusion as to what it 
should do. The committee has reported all the facts; 
it has reported all the law bearing upon the facts ;but 
it has refrained from making any recommendation as 
to the institution of further proceedings against Gen- 
eral Fry. 

Then there was another reason — the most potent 
of all — that operated upon the mind of the committee 
in omitting to present any further resolution. It is 
that the breach of the privileges of the House was com- 
mitted so entirely in conjunction with the action of a 
member of this House that the two acts cannot be sep- 
arated. The letter is written containing upon its face 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 305 

the evidence that it was meant to be used somewhere, 
and was not designed simply for the information of the 
gentleman from Maine [Mr. JBlcdne\ to whom it was 
addressed. 

There were other facts which came to the knowl- 
edge of the committee. It was stated to the commit- 
tee, for instance, that no complaint was made by Gen- 
eral Fry that Mr. Blaine had violated his confidence 
or wishes in presenting it to the House. These con- 
siderations induced the committee to believe his letter 
was written to be used in the House in the manner in 
which it was used by a member of the House. There- 
fore, sir, the committee was brought clearly up to the 
question, whether further proceedings could be taken 
against General Fry except as connected with those 
against a member of the House, one of them having 
violated the privileges of the House, and we deemed it 
fair and just the proceedings should be a unit against 
both. That, I believe, answers the inquiry of the gen- 
tleman from Pennsylvania. 

I do not wish to detain the House longer. I re- 
peat what has been said in the report, that a more 
careful and more malicious and wanton violation of 
the privileges of the House and of its members has 
not been brought to the notice of any member of the 
committee. There is not to be found any more hurt- 
ful libel upon any member of this body in the history 
of its proceedings. It is due to ourselves, it is due to 
this body, if we are to preserve the dignity of the 
character of a Representative of American people, that 
such indignities should cease. My unwillingness to 
detain the House at this late period in the session does 



30G 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



not grow out of any belief on my part that this is not 
an important matter. Greutlemen of the House of 
Representatives, it is time steps were taken to stop 
this parade of plantation manners and ruffianism here 
at the centre and heart of the nation where the laws 
are made, and where law is esteemed to be sublime 
and sacred in its sway. I have not spoken, because 
the matter has been brought so eloquently and fully 
to the attention of the House, on the question of priv- 
ilege just disposed of. It has fully been brought to 
the attention of the House by the report of the com- 
mittee. I am unwilling to consume the time of 
the House, but I am unwilling to sit down without say- 
ing the House should do this justice to my friend 
from New York, [Mr. Conhling,~] a justice he is entitled 
to, having been in all this matter in reference to which 
he was assailed, not only innocent, but eminently 
patriotic and valuable step by step to his Government 
at a time of imminent peril. It is due to him and the 
House we should call the yeas and nays expressing 
the judgment of the House in condemnation of this 
act of indignity which one of its members suffered. 
Unless some gentleman desires to address the House, 
I shall now demand the previous question. 

Mr. Wentworili. I ask the gentleman to yield to 
me for five minutes. 

Mr. Shellaharger. Certainly. 

Mr. Wentworth. Mr. Speakei', it appears to me 
that we are trying the wrong man. If I remember 
the origin of this case, a member of this body rose in 
violation of the rules of this House and of parliamen- 
tary courtesy and assailed the motives of the gentle- 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



307 



man from New York, [Mr. Conkling,'] and in justifi- 
cation of that assault, a few days afterward, be intro- 
duced, under the pretense of a personal explanation, 
a letter which he sent to the Clerk to be read. 

Mr. Pihe. I do not wish to mix in this general 
exculpation of the gentleman from New York. But 
I want to say to the gentleman from Illinois, in be- 
half of m}^ colleague, now absent on account of sick- 
ness, that he did not bring this letter before the House 
in any surreptitious way. 

Mr. Wentwortlh. I did not so charge. If I re- 
member correctly, he asked to make a personal ex- 
planation. 

Mr. Filce. He did not. I presume the gentle- 
man does not mean to do my colleague injustice. 

Mr. Wentworth. I would not do anyone injustice. 

Mr. Fihe, My colleague told the House that he 

had such a letter, and asked to have it read. He did 

not rise to a personal explanation and then have this 

letter read. 

Mr. Wentworth. He rose to a personal explana- 
tion. 

Mr. Pihe. The record of the Globe will show 
that I am right. The House was fully advised by my 
colleague of the character of the letter when he offered 
it, and no objection was made to its being read. The 
committee seem to have fallen into the same error as 
the gentleman from Illinois, and thereupon censure 
the practice of introducing letters under the permission 
for personal explanation. The fact was that my col- 
league rose stating that he held in his hand a letter 
from General Fry who he considered to have been un- 



308 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



Justly assailed in a previous debate in the House. He 
asked that the letter should be read as a matter of fair 
play. No objection was made. The gentleman from 
New York consented, if he could have an opportunity 
to reply. 

Mr. Conkling. The gentleman from Maine so far 
as he refers to me is mistaken. I said, simply infer- 
ring that the letter had some reference to me, al- 
though ignorant of its contents, that I would make no 
objection for myself, if I could have leave to reply if 
anything needingreply should appear. I gave no con- 
sent. I had no knowledge of what the letter was, nor 
was I in any respect in privity with the outrage and 
indecency of its being read. I simply refrained from 
objecting as I was, as I supposed, in some way referred 
to, and did not therefore choose to interpose objection 
if others did not. 

Mr. Pike. When the Speaker asked if anyone 
objected to the introduction of the letter— and he put 
it twice clearly to the House — the gentleman from 
New York rose in his place and said he should not 
object. 

Mr. Conkling. I simply refrained from objecting; 
I did not assent. 

Mr, Pike. If the gentleman makes a distinction 
between assenting and not objecting, he is entitled to 
the benefit of the distinction. I desire merely simply 
to state the position of my colleague in introducing 
the letter. 

Mr. Wentworth. Mr. Speaker, what I want to 
say is this : the chairman of the committee alluded to 
plantation manners. Now plantation manners are not 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 309 

generally located in the North. At least it is not so 
generally understood. General Fry is a native of my 
state, and the gentleman who brought his letter be- 
fore the House knew what it contained ; he knew it 
contained an attack upon one of his fellow members, 
and one of his coequals in the House ; and in sending 
it to the Clerk's desk to be read he did it for the ex- 
press purpose of responding to the gentleman from 
New York. And now my friend calls this plantation 
manners. Why, sir, these manners are up in the boreal 
regions — the northern part of Maine and the northern 
part of Illinois. General Fry was one of the first 
graduates of West Point from my Congressional Dis- 
trict. I take an interest in his character, and my 
whole State has an interest in it, not only personally, 
but on account of the services of his family. His 
father, when the war broke out, differing politically 
from the Administration, raised a regiment, and though 
he was between sixty and seventy years of age he went 
into the field and fought in some of the severest battles 
that took place during the war. His friends are 
numerous in our State, and as one of the Represen- 
tatives of the State I would not feel justified in allow- 
ing this thing to be done, which it seems to be the in- 
tention of the House to do, without saying this much. 
And yet I feel that I am under no obligation to defend 
General Fry, although he was my own cadet, because 
he should have shown me that letter. I understand 
that he exhibited the letter to no member of the 
Illinois delegation. There is not a member from 
Illinois who would not have advised him to have kept 
it to himself. 



310 CONKLING AND BLAINK-FKY CONTROVERriY. 

But, Mr. Speaker, to revert to the original point, 
it does not screen a man when lie wants to attack some 
fellow-member of the House to go to the Department, 
sret a letter and send it to the Clerk's desk to be read. 
And here this report is brought in censuring him. 
As for the gentleman from New York [M]\ CbnMing'] 
I am free to say, as I presume every member of the 
House is, that there is nothing in his conduct that is 
not entirely to his ci-edit, and he has won laurels by 
the investigation. 

The Speciker. The gentleman's five minutes have 
expired. 

Mr. Shellaharger. I am willing to give the gen- 
tleman five minutes more. 

Mr. We7itivorth. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are pass- 
ing by this subject, we are passing by the gentleman 
who introduced this letter to censure him. Does any 
one suppose that the gentleman from Maine when he 
introduced it did not know for what purpose it was 
written ? What testimony is before the committee 
that General Fry himself knew it was to come here ? 
But so far as he is concerned that does not affect the 
odium attached to him for sending it here, or to others 
who gave it to tke gentleman from Maine. But the 
point I object to is, that the gentleman from New 
York should bring down \\\)on the head of this officer 
whose character has stood up to this time without re- 
proach, one of the most gallant men we ever had in the 
Army, whose integrity and honor have always been 
sustained until this committee made this report ; and 
now the whole of the odium of sending a letter here is 
to be attributed to him, when I think it belongs some- 
where else. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



311 



I have several times during this session felt it to 
be my duty to call gentlemen to order for impugning 
the motives of other members. I always differed in 
this respect with the Chair. It would make an easy 
berth for the Speaker, according to his decision, that a 
member who had consent to make a personal explana- 
tion could go on and say what he pleased, and we 
would have to sit here and watch him. I am satisfied, 
since the Speaker delivered his recent opinion, that he 
is right in a parliamentary point of view. Hereafter, 
if anybody on this floor undertakes to make a personal 
attack on another, I shall feel bound to call him to 
order at once. Had we done this when the gentleman 
from Maine imputed bad motives to the gentleman 
from New York, we would have saved ourselves in 
the House all this trouble and mortification. When 
such a contest has once begun, it is the bounden duty 
of some one member to rise upon the floor and demand 
that it shall be stopped. 

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that some one will feel it to 
be his duty, if he knows anything against General Fry, 
to prefer the charges and let him be tried by the 
proper tribunal. If he sent that letter here, if he de- 
signed it to be sent here against a member of this 
House, I am willing to go as far as any other member 
of the House, to fix the proper censure upon him. 
Should it appear, however, that he did not intend to 
have that letter presented to the House, then, so far 
as the prerogatives of the House are concerned, it 
alters the case very materially. I agree with the gen- 
tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens], if there be 
anything against General Fry, let charges be filed 



312 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

against him, and let him be tried by a military tribunal. 
He is out of the House ; there is no one here to advo- 
cate his cause. No one knows what he has to say. 
We have no explanation why he sent that letter here. 
As he did not send the letter here, I am willing, to that 
extent, to agree to the report of the committee. But 
then there is the member who had the letter read from 
the Clerk's desk. When he sent it up to be read he 
virtually indorsed it. What are we to do with him ? 

Mr. Sliellaharger. I demand the previous question. 

Mr. Pihe. I want to say a word in behalf of my 
colleague. 

Mr. Sliellaharger. I will yield out of my time 
after the previous question has been seconded. 

The previous question was seconded and the main 
question ordered. 

The Speaher stated that the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Shellaharger'] was entitled to an hour in which to 
close the debate. 

Mr. Sliellaharger. I yield five minutes to the 
gentleman from Maine. 

Mr. Pike. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Il- 
linois makes a valiant defense — I suppose he means it 
to be such — of his yrotegd^ General Fry, by attempting 
to shift the whole responsibility upon my colleague. 

Mr. Wentwortli. I do not make any defense of 
General Fry. 

Mr. Pike. The gentleman insinuates that my 
colleague by some wily art induced General Fry to 
send that letter to be read in this House. 

Mr. Wentwortli. I beg the gentleman's pardon. 
I did not say so. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 313 

Mr. Pike. Is the gentleman authorized by Gen- 
eral Fry or any one else to say that my colleague in- 
duced him to send this letter to this House ? 

Mr. Wentworth. I do not charge the gentleman's 
colleague with having done so. 

Mr. Pike. I am glad that tlie gentleman with- 
draws the charge. 

Mr. Wentworth. I do not charge any colleague 
of mine in this House with anything. 

Mr. Pihe. I understood the gentleman to say 
that my colleague induced General Fry to send this 
letter here. 

Mr. Wentworth. I said I did not know what in- 
ducements were brought to bear upon General Fry to 
have him send this letter here. 

Mr. Pihe. I can say to the gentleman, if he does 
not know, and I speak from a general knowledge of 
my colleague's character and not from having had any 
communication with him on the subject — I can tell 
him that if he investigates the subject and learns the 
truth, he will find that his insinuations against my col- 
league have no foundation. He generously defended 
General Fry, as he would any friend he deemed un- 
justly assailed, and General Fry furnished him this 
letter expressly to be read in this House as corroborat- 
ing his statements in his behalf. 

Ml'. Wentivorth. Have you seen General Fry ? 

Mr. Pihe. I have not. I have had no commun- 
ication with him. I do not propose to defend him. 
I only speak of the part my colleague had in this 
transaction. As to the breach of privilege which is 
spoken of by some gentlemen, the House knows of 



31-4: CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

the debate that occurred. My colleague had his say ; 
the gentleman from New York had his say; which got 
the better of it the record will show. 

The gentleman from Illinois said my colleague 
rose for a personal explanation and then introduced 
the letter, acting under pretense of his privileges. I 
corrected him ; and now I have the Globe, which will 
show who was right, and it will show, too, that my 
colleague is not subject to the implied censure of the 
committee, if they mean it as a censure, when in their 
report they condemn the practice of members coming 
in here, under the color of personal explanations, and 
bringing in letters from other persons. 

Now let me read from the Globe containing the 
report of the proceedings and debates of the House of 
the 30th of April : 

Mr. Blaine. Will the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Bliof] 
yield to me a moment? 

Mr. Eliot. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Blaine. I hold in my hand a letter from Provost Marshal Gen- 
eral Fry, which I ask to have read at the Clerk's desk for the double 
purpose of vindicating myself from the charge of having stated in de- 
bate last week what was false, and also for the purpose, which I am 
sure will commend itself to the House, of allowing fair play to an hon- 
orable man in the same forum in which he has been assailed. 

The Speaker, It requires unanimous consent to have it read. Is 
there objection? 

Mr. Colliding. I infer that this has some reference to me. I shall 
make no objection, provided I may have an opportunity to reply to 
whatever the letter may call for hereafter. 

Mr. Stevens. I hope this will be postponed until after we get 
through this bill. I object to interrupting in this way. 

It was not read then. About an hour later in the 
proceedings I find this : 

Mr. Blaine. I ask to send to the Clerk's table to have read the 
letter the reading of which was objected to this morning. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 



315 



Mr. Conllhi'i. I do not object, but only ask, if the matter relates 
to me, to have an opportunity to reply. 

Mr. Blaine. I wish to repeat what I said before. 

Mr. Roxs. I object to the gentleman from New York making a 
speech. 

Mr. ConkliiKj. The gentleman does not want a matter to be read 
relating to a member and then not permit that member to reply. 

Mr. Ros^, I withdraw my objection. 

Mr. Bhdne. I want this letter read for the double purpose of vin- 
dicating myself from the charge of having made an untruthful state- 
ment on this floor, and to give, in the broad American sense, fair play 
and opportunity to a worthy oflflcer to be heard in a forum where he 
has been assailed. 

I wish further to say that if, on investigation, I had found I was in 
error in the statement I had made touching the member from the Utica 
district of New York [Mr. Conlling'] and Provost Marshal General Fry, I 
would, mortifying as it would have been, have apologized to the House. 
Whether I was in error or not I leave to those who hear the letter of 
the Provost Marshal General. 

And thereupon the letter was read. The House 
can judge whether there was any invasion of dignity 
when all the members consented to have the letter 
read to them. Certainly my colleague did nothing 
but what was fair and manly. The House cannot 
now complain if they failed to object to the reading 
of what they desired to hear. 

Mr. Hotchhiss. Mr. Speaker, should the resolu- 
tion which my colleague from the Onondaga district 
gave notice of a few minutes ago be adopted, we 
should ascertain who was the right man to be prose- 
cuted in this case. It has been suggested by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Wentwortli] that we are 
pursuing the wrong man ; that General Fry, when 
that letter was sent to Mr. Blaine, might not have 
known that it was to be used in this House. Now, I 
do not wish to spend a moment's time over that ; I 



316 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



desire to call the attention of the House to another 
subject. 

Mr. Pilce. Does the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Hotchhiss] believe that was the fact ? 

Mr. Hotclikiss. That what was the fact ? 

Mr. Pike. That when General Fry sent that 
letter to my colleague [Mr. Blaine\ he, General Fry, 
did not expect it to be read in this House. 

Mr. HotchMss. I have expressed no opinion 
upon the subject, and therefore I am not to be cross- 
examined upon the subject. But I would call the 
attention of the House to libel No. 2, which has 
been sent stealthily into this House and scattered 
around here upon the desks of members. It has been 
kept away from my desk. It has been stolen in here, 
with this notice served upon the House : 

" A request made by General Fiy to the investigating committee 
for the privilege of preparing and submitting, by himself or counsel, a 
written plea was not granted, ' ' 

Here is an appeal to the House against the con- 
duct of one of its committees : 

"The following letter of instructions was, however, addressed by 
General Fry to his counsel, Hon. A. G. Riddle, on the eve of the oral 
plea, which Mr, Riddle made in compliance with the requirements of 
the committee. It gives a general but brief resume of the grounds on 
which General Fry rests his charges against Mr. Conkling, and his de- 
fense against the charge which Mr. Conkling incidentally brings against 
him." 

There the attention of this House is called to this 
question, on an appeal from the action of their com- 
mittee. He says that they did not treat him fairly, 
and he now appeals to the House and calls their atten- 
tion to this letter, and asks them to review the matter. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



817 



Now, wlio has done that? I would like to know who 
is the right man for that, and whether this body has 
any dignity to protect. We have been lectured here 
this session from all quarters, until finally clerks in 
the Departments come here and read lectures to us, or 
use members of this House for that purpose. Next 
come in bullies and attack us, and attack the officers 
of this House. When will the dogs be set upon us ? 
Such a libel as this is scattered about this House, and 
the attention of the House is called to it ; and then 
General Fry says : 

' ' I have thus briefly reviewed the charges contained in my letter. 
Of the principal charges, I maintain and reassert not only the substan- 
tial but the literal correctness." 

A more impudent, a more detestable libel, never 
was presented to the House. It is in defiance of the 
committee and in defiance of the judgment of the 
House. It says in substance, "I will insult you, no 
matter what you do, no matter what the report of 
your committee may be." 

The SpeaJcef. The five minutes of the gentleman 
have expired. 

Mr. 81iellaharger. I yield to the gentleman five 
minutes more. 

Mr. Hotchhiss. I desire to say only a few words 
more. 

Mr. Speaker, if this matter should be referred to 
the Judiciary Committee as a matter of law, the special 
committee having found all the facts, and this last 
libel being before us, that committee will be enabled 
to ascertain who the " right man " is ; and by and by 
we shall be able to find some one whom we may be 



318 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



able to bring into this House, that the Speaker may 
talk to him and persuade him, perhaps, that he really 
has been in the wrong in ti'ampling upon the dignity 
of the American Congress, by insulting us, by treating 
us as no man would dare to treat a common pettifogger 
in a decent justice's court. By and by we shall rise, 
perhaps, to sufficient dignity to resent an insult. 

Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested here by an 
honorable member that if a bureau of this Grovern- 
ment — a bureau reeking with corruption, a stench in 
the nostrils of the people — comes in here and asks for 
a continuance of public confidence and public favoi', 
that it be incorporated in a new law, perhaps ingrafted 
upon the Constitution by way of amendment, no 
member here has a right to rise and say anything 
about the man who administers that bureau. No 
matter how corrupt his conduct may have been, our 
mouths must be closed, or else when we approach the 
door of this Hall ruffians may pounce upon us ; or we 
may be libelled by newspaper correspondents ; it may 
be heralded all over the country that this or that 
member has violated the Constitution and the law, 
and has disgraced himself. 

The hirelings of the press throughout the country 
have been busy libelling my colleague ever since this 
infamous slander was read here, the attacks emanating 
from this city, the press being shamelessly prostituted 
for the purpose of traducing him. I have told him to 
wait in silence till the day of reckoning should come. 
Now I want to have the verdict of this House pro- 
claimed throughout the Union. 

There is one more point to which I wish to call 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 319 

attention. This investigation has been conducted by 
a committee who hav^e become acquainted with the 
question. I hope the subject may not be taken out 
of their hands and referred to the Executive for his 
action. The Executive should hear the whole story 
when it is told. We have scarcely begun this matter. 
General Fry has not been tried. We tried Mr. Conk- 
ling. We have, so far as we have been permitted, 
shown General Fry's motive in writing this libel, but 
have gone no further. This committee should be 
continued to investigate the whole case. They should 
go on " in this line if it takes all summer." 

Mr. Speaker, I had no idea of saying a word on 
this subject ; but when it is suggested that a Repre- 
sentative on this floor has no right to speak his mind 
independently on questions of public interest, matters 
of legislation, I desire to know whether that is the 
rule or not. If he is to be tongue-tied here I would 
rather not hold a position in this House. 

Mr. Shellaharger. Mr. Speaker, I now ask that 
the vote be taken. 

Mr. Randall, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentle- 
man from Ohio allow me to ask him a question ? 

Mr. Shellaharger. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Randall, of Pennsylvania. Preliminary to 
the question, I desire to say a word or two. I have 
not had time to read this report, nor do I wish in any 
manner to enter into the personal matters to which it 
relates ; but I want to know of the chairman whether 
this committee in their report justify the taking of 
employment by a member of Congress who is in 
receipt of his salary as a member of Congress, and 



320 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



taking payment for such employment in addition to 
his emoluments as a member of Congress. I want to 
know whether the committee, irrespective of the 
parties involved in this ease, justify that or not. 

Mr. Shellaharger. The committee find in their 
report that a member of Congress who is qualified as 
such shall not hold any other ofifice or receive any 
compensation therefor. They find that a member of 
Congress, after the 4th of March, the day on which 
his pay commences under the law, cannot receive the 
salary of any other office during that time. A mem- 
ber of Congress may be employed by the Government 
as counsel, and such employment may be competently 
performed ; and that is what occurred in this case. 

Mr. Handall, of Pennsylvania. Then I under- 
stand the gentleman to say he believes a member of 
Congress, subsequent to the 4th of March and prior 
to the expiration of his term, can be employed by the 
Government in another capacity and receive compen- 
sation therefor. 

Mr. Shellaharger. That is what the committee 
find on the subject, if the employment is not an office. 

Mr. Randall, of Pennsylvania. Can he be em- 
ployed against the Government? 

Mr. SJiellaharger. In favor of the Government 
he may be employed; against the Government he can- 
not be employed, because there is a statute of 1864 
which expressly provides in this identical case of Mr. 
Conkling, that is to say, it provides no member of 
Congress shall be permitted to be employed by any 
person in any proceeding before a court-martial, fur- 
nishing a complete legislative determination that he 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



321 



may be employed in that identical case on the other 
side, because the provision of 1864, in saying that a 
member of Congress may not be employed by any 
other person, would imply that he may be employed 
in that identical case by the Government itself. 

Mr. Mcmdall, of Pennsylvania. That is a fine 
distinction— a distinction without a difference. If it 
be not a violation of the letter of the law, it is to my 
mind a violation of its spirit. 

Mr. Stevens. Suppose a man had an action of 
ejectment against the Government in Philadelphia, 
and came to my colleague to employ him, woidd he 
think himself barred ? 

Mr, Randall^ of Pennsylvania. I am not a mem- 
ber of the bar and therefore I should not be barred. 
[Laughter.] I will answer my colleague that I do 
not think it would be proper for me while receiving 
pay as a member of Congress to be employed against 
the Government I was sent here to represent. 

Mr. Stevens. Last September parties came to me 
to represent them in a suit in reference to the internal 
revenue. They made it worth my while ; that is, I 
suppose, paying my expenses. [Laughter.] I did so 
and defeated the Government, by which it is com- 
pelled to refund some six or seven thousand dollars. 
I owe an apology to the country for having done jus- 
tice to these parties. 

Mr. Randall^ of Pennsylvania. That is a matter 
about which I have no concern. 

Mr. Shellaharger demanded the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken; and it was decided in 



322 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



the affirmative — yeas 96, nays 4, not voting 82 ; as 
follows : 

Yeas — Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, 
Delos R. Ashley, Banks, Baxter, Bidwell, Bingham, 
Boutvrell, Boyer, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader 
W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Davis, Dawson, 
Defrees, Delano, Deming, Donnelly, Eckley, Eggles- 
ton, Eliot, Ferry, Garfield, Hale, Abner C. Harding, 
Hart, Higby, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Chester D. 
Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hul- 
burd, Humphrey, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, 
Ketcham, Koontz, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, Wil- 
liam Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Marston, McClurg, 
McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, 
Morris, Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham, 
Pike, Plants, Price, Radford, William H. Randall, 
Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, 
Sawyer, Shellabarger, Stevens, Strouse, Taber, Taylor, 
John L. Thomas, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, 
Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Henry D. Wash- 
burn, AVilliam B. Washburn, Welker, Williams, James 
F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Wood- 
bridge — 96. 

Nays — Messrs. Bromwell, Ross, Thornton, and 
Wentworth — 4. 

Not voting — Messrs. Ancona, James M. Ashley, 
Baker, Baldwin, Barker, Beamen, Benjamin, Bergen, 
Blaine, Blow, Brandegee, Chanler, Conkling, Cook, 
Cullom, Culver, Darling, Dawes, Denison, Dixon, 
Dodge, Driggs, Dumont, Eldridge, Farnsworth, 
Farquhar, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grider, 
Grinnell, Griswold, Aaron Harding, Harris, Hayes, 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 323 

Henderson, Hill, Hogan, Asaliel B. Hubbard, Demas 
Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, Ingersoll, Johnson, 
Jones, Kelso, Kerr, Kuykendall, Latham, Le Blond, 
Lynch, Marshall, Marvin, McCullough, Mclndoe, 
Moulten, Niblack, Nicholson, Noell, Patterson, Phelps, 
Pomeroy, Samuel J. Randall, Kitter, Rogers, Rousseau, 
Schenck, Scofield, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Sloan, Smith, 
Spalding, Starr, Stilwell, Thayer, Francis Thomas, 
Trimble, Upson, Elihu B. Washburne, Whaley, Win- 
field, and Wright— 82. 

So the resolution was adopted. 
During the roll call, 

Mr. Wentworth said : While I concur in so much 
of the report as relates to the gentleman from New 
York, in othei' respects I cannot concur in it for the 
reasons I have stated, and I therefore vote "no." 

The vote having been announced as above 
recorded, 

Mr. SheJlaharger moved to reconsider the vote by 
which the resolution w^as passed, and also moved to 
lay the motion to reconsider upon the table. 
The latter motion was a2;reed to. 
Mr. Davis. I rise to a question of privilege. I 
offer the following resolution and demand the previous 
question upon it : 

Whereas on the 80th of April a letter purporting 
to be written by General Fry was read in the House, 
together with sundry documents accompanying it, 
which letter was grossly libellous and reflected upon 
the public and private character of a member; and 
whereas the House having ordered an inquiry as to 
said letter and its truth or falsity; and whereas for 



324 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

that purpose a select committee was raised, which 
committee has ascertained and reported said letter to 
have been false and malicious : Therefore, 

Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee be 
instructed to inquire and report whether any breach 
of the privileges of the House not sufficiently reported 
upon by said select committee has been committed in 
connection with writing or sending said letter, the doc- 
uments accompanying the same, or the introduction 
thereof into the House, or causing the same to be read 
in the House, or entered upon the record of the House, 
or making the same public, and if so, by whom, and 
what action, if any, should be taken ; and that said 
committee also inquire and report whether said libel 
has been republished or renewed by the said General 
Fry or any other person since the termination of the 
session of said committee, and if so, by Avhom, and 
whether any and what action ought to be had thereon ; 
and that said committee have power to send for per- 
sons and papers. 

The Speaker. The gentleman claims this to be 
a question of privilege. The Chair will submit to the 
House whether it is a question of privilege. 

Mr. Wilson, of Iowa. I suggest that the gentle- 
man modify it so far as to refer the subject to the 
same committee that has had this matter under con- 
sideration heretofore. I see no necessity for taking it 
out of the jurisdiction of that committee and referring 
it to another. I am satisfied that the House has entire 
confidence in the ability and integrity of that com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Eldridge. Is this debatable ? 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 325 

The Speaher. The Chair thinks it is scarcely 
debatable. It is a question which must be decided by 
the House exactly as the Chair decides a question of 
privilege, upon the presentation of the resolution itself, 

Mr. Davis. I desire to say that I have no objec 
tion to this going to the special committee, though I 
preferred it should go to the Judiciary Committee. I 
am entirely willing to modify it. 

Mr. Eldridge. I withdraw my objection. 

Mr. Pihe. My colleague, I know, would not 
object to the fullest investigation. 

Mr. Shellaharger. I did not hear the resolution 
read, but I understand it to relate to the question 
whether in the conduct of the gentleman from Maine 
there was anything that constituted a breach of the 
rules or privileges of the House. Now, that is a ques- 
tion for the Committee on Rules, and I beg that the 
resolution may take that direction, for no member of 
the select committee, that I am aware of, professes to 
be familiar with the rules of this body. 

Mr. Davis. I desire not to reflect upon the char- 
acter of any member whatever. I have not introduced 
the resolution from any personal feeling toward any 
member of the House. But I desire to know what 
constitutes a breach of the privileges of the House. 

Mr. Radford. I object to further debate. 

Mr. Davis. Will the gentleman allow a state- 
ment to be made ? 

Mr. Radford. No, sir. 

The S2:)eaker. The only subject to be referred to 
the Committee on Rules is a proposition to amend the 
rules. 



326 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

Mr. Davis. Then I will insist upon the previous 
motion to refer it to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

The Speaker. The Chair will submit to the 
House whether this is a question of privilege. 

The question being taken, it was decided in the 
negative — ayes 24, noes 71. 



APPENDIX E. 

I expect to show that Captain Orandall, when 
he was suspended from duty as Provost Marshal of 
the Twenty-first District, held in his hands money and 
bonds which belonged to the United States, and which 
he had refused at least three times to turn over, on 
competent orders from superior authority, to wit : 
Major Haddock and General (Tames B. Fry, Provost 
Marshal General of the United States. 

I expect to show that he was ordered to turn it 
over to a special officer of Major Haddock! s, and that 
he refused ; that he was ordered to turn it over to a 
disbursing officer of the United States who had no 
connection with Major Haddock, but who kept his 
accounts with the Treasury of the United States, 
whose business it was to receive the money ; and that 
he refused to turn it over. 

I expect to show that he was directed by Major 
Haddock to turn it over to his successor in office, who 
relieved him of the duties of Provost Marshal of that 
district, and who was directed to receive and receipt 
for these moneys, which had come to Captain Oran- 
dall^ 8 hands as Provost Marshal ; that he was going 
out of office as Provost Marshal, being suspended from 
duty, and Major Beadle was about to relieve him ; and 
that Captain CrandaU disobeyed the order and refused 
to turn over these moneys and bonds to his successor. 

I expect, further, to show that this was all 
327 



328 CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 

known to Mr. ConMing, and that no prosecution was 
ever made for the violation of these orders. 

I ex23ect to show that the county of Oneida was 
paying a bounty of $700, perhaps $725 ; that a large 
number of men, during the time that the county was 
paying this bounty, were mustered into service with 
$50 bounty ; and that a large number of these recruits 
deserted. 

I expect, further, to prove that Captain Crandall 
stated, under oath, that prior to a certain date, which 
I cannot now remember, but during his administra- 
tion, and after he had been in office some time, of all 
the recruits who had entered the service, none of them 
were citizens of Oneida county ; that it was his duty to 
know that the law required that persons not residents 
of Oneida county could not be credited to that county ; 
and that these persons who, he swore, were not resi- 
dents of Oneida county, were by him credited to 
Oneida county. 

I expect to show that that came to the knowl- 
edge of Mr. ConMing on the trial of the Haddock 
Court Martial. 

I expect to show that there was an order or 
regulation in force in that district which required the 
Provost Marshal, during the time Captain Crandall 
was in office, to disregard any pretended claim that a 
recruit was going for a less sum than the bounty 
offered by the county. 

I propose to show that that order, then in force, 
was disregarded by Captain Crandall^ and that it 
came to the knowledge of Mr. ConMing^ and that no 
prosecution was ever made for it. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 329 

I [)ropose, further, to show that, at the time 
the call of the 19th of December, 1804, was being 
filled, and a fund was raised by the Supervisors of 
Oneida county, equivalent to $700 for each recruit 
who would enlist for three years ; that the quota fixed 
was calculated on a three years' basis; that a resolu- 
tion of the Board of Supervisors authorized each 
Supervisor to recruit for his own town ; that he was 
authorized to draw from the Treasurer, or the agent 
who had control of the fund, an amount of money 
equal to seven hundred times the quota of the town ; 
and that each Supervisor was authorized to do that as 
a recruiting agent ; that when he had finished recruit- 
ing, he settled with the rest of the Supervisors, or they 
settled among themselves; and if he could produce 
credit sufficient, or certificates of some mustering 
officer — as, for instance, the Provost Marshal — show- 
ing recruits equal to the amount of quota he was re- 
quired to pay for (for illustration — if the quota of a 
town was forty, and he could produce to the recruit- 
ing agents, who happened to be Supervisors, forty 
certificates of credit, he having previously drawn 
twenty-eight thousand dollars), that that would be 
regarded as the full settlement of that county. 

I expect to prove, further, that the class of men 
who were enlisted at that office by Captain Orandall 
were a disgrace to the service; that the office was 
notorious as a place at which deserters and bounty 
jumpers could be passed and mustered into service; 
that they deserted in large numbers, and that men, in 
addition to that, who were physically disqualified, 
were passed by that Board ; that the examinations 



330 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FBY CONTROVERSY, 



were not conducted in compliance witb the Regula- 
tions; that the surgeon had his office in one place and 
the Provost Marshal in another, in different rooms, 
and that improper men were passed by the Board. 

I expect to prove that these bonds, which Cap- 
tain Grmidall refused to turn over under the orders 
to which I have alluded, were afterwards offered by 
him to the County Supervisors ; that he offered to 
surrender up the bonds to the Supervisors who had 
issued them. 

I expect to prove that, about this time, Captain 
Crandall, in the Supreme Court of Oneida county, 
testified that these bonds belonged to the United 
States; that, in a suit in which a man named Richard- 
son was plaintiff — which was an action, as I under- 
stand, of replevin, brought by the plaintiff Michardson, 
to recover possession of these bonds — Captain Oran- 
dall, in that action, set up as a defense to defeat the 
plaintiff's right of recovery, the fact that these bonds 
were the property of the United States ; and that he 
had, on several occasions, refused to deliver up this 
property, which, on that trial, he swore was the prop- 
erty of the United States. 

I expect to show that Captain Crandall was 
ordered to give up these bonds, and that he refused. 



APPENDIX F. 

THE BONDS. 

lu arriving at this opinion, there is no doubt that 
the Committee had some reasons which satisfied them 
of the soundness thereof. 

It is proposed, for a moment, to examine the argu- 
ment of the Committee on this point, and discover, if 
possible, the nature of these reasons. 

The first fact which the Committee find is, that 
" these bonds were not local bounty, nor were they 
deposited in behalf of recruits, as stated in General 
Fry's letter." 

Captain Crandall, in his oflScial report, dated 
March 11, (which Judge Hiviit says he advised and 
suggested,) states : " I have in my hands, left with me 
by recruits in the manner stated, $11,395, and county 
bonds to the amount of $20,000." 

Captain Orandall having reported that the bonds 
" were left with him by recruits," and I having stated 
in my letter that the bonds " were deposited on be- 
half of recruits," the Committee take occasion to con- 
tradict the latter, by asserting that " these bonds were 
not local bounty, nor were they deposited in behalf 
of recruits"; and this contradiction is given by the 
Committee when the point is no way material to the 
issue under investigation. This is only important, as 
showing the bias of the Committee. 

The next statement is, that "on the 4th of March, 
1865, Major Haddock directed Captain Crandall to 

331 



332 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



turn over these bonds to S. Floyd Hoard, Special 
Agent. Captain Crandall sought the advice of dis- 
tinguished and able counsel, and was told he could 
not safely turn them over," &c. 

Captain Crandall was a subordinate military 
officer, under the command of Major Haddock. He 
received an order in the line of his duty. Instead of 
obeying it, he advised with his lawyer, and disobeyed 
it. If the surmise of the Committee as to Major Had- 
doch^s object in getting possession of the funds be true, 
and that object had been accomplished, it would still 
have been better for the government for Captain Cran- 
dall to have obeyed the order, because we are told 
that " Haddock was compelled to disgorge," while, as 
it turns out, these bonds are all lost to the government, 
as the Supervisors, so far as heard from, have not in- 
timated any disposition to "disgorge." 

The material fact that Captain Crandall was or- 
dered to turn over these bonds to Captain Meredith, 
a United States disbursing officer, is entirely ignored 
by the Committee. As this officer kept his account 
with the United States Treasury, and did not account 
to Major Haddock, or place his funds at the disposal 
of that officer, there was no ground for apprehension 
that'the transfer of the bonds to Captain MereditJi 
could, in any event, inure to the benefit of Major Had- 
dock, or loss to the government. 

This order was disobeyed. Captain Cra/ndatl was 
ordered to turn the money over to his successor, 
Major Beadle, which order, like the others, he dis- 
obeyed. 

On the 30th of March, he was ordered by the 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTEOVERSY. 333 

Provost Marshal General "to turn over all moneys, 
bonds and other evidence of indebtedness in his pos- 
session, whether belonging to enlisted men who had 
deserted, or other enlisted men," (page 202). To 
which he answered by telegraph as follows : " Your 
communication I'eceived ; will comply at once." And, 
on the same day, he turned over $2,600 to Major Lee, 
and $5,495 to Major Ladd, (page 203) which, with 
other amounts, he held in defiance of the three pre- 
ceding orders to turn them over, and that, too, after 
having been relieved from duty on the 13th of the 
preceding month. On advising with his counsel, he 
came to the conclusion that the $20,000 in bonds, 
which he had reported to me "he held in his hands, 
left with him hy recvuita^'' and which he had been three 
times peremptorily ordered to turn over, were not em- 
braced in the order above cited, and he again i-efused 
to turn them over. As soon as I learned that he had 
turned over only certain moneys, and had not turned 
over the bonds, his attention was called to the fact, 
and, on the 5th of April, he was directed as follows 
(page 204) : 

"WAR DEPARTMENT, 

PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL'S BUREAU, 

Washington, D. C, April 5, 1865. 

Captain: I am directed by the Provost Marshal General to 
acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 1st instant, report- 
ing the transfer, by you, of $5,495 to Major Ladd, and $2,000 to Major 
Lee, and to invite your attention to the fact that, in a tabular state- 
ment of moneys, checks, bonds and vouchers deposited with you, on 
account of local bounties, forwarded by you to this office, you admit 
having in your possession $33,995, which leaves a balance of $25,900 



334 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



unaccounted for. The Provost Marshal General directs me to inquire 
what disposition you have made of the balance, $35,900. 
I am, Captain, very respectfully, 

Your obedient servant, 
(Signed) C. McKEEVER, 

Assistant Adjutant General. 
Captain P. B. Crandall, 
Care of Major Beadle, Acting Provost Marshal, Utica, N.Y." 

From this it plainly appears that the bonds were 
embraced in my order of March 30 ; and that Cap- 
tain Crandall so understood it appears fi'om his an- 
swer (page 204), in which he accounts for the bonds, 
and states that they have been seized by a writ of re- 
plevin at the suit of Aaron Richardson. Upon this 
statement of the case, the Committee say : 

"These bonds belonged unquestionably either to Aaron Richard- 
son or to the government. 

' ' If they belonged to Richardson, it is not easy to see why the 
complaint should be made that Captain Crandall had violated the 
order of the Dei^artment in not tvirning over the bonds to Major Had- 
dock or Major Lee, leaving himself liable to Richardson for this amount. 
If they belonged to the government, it is still more difficult to see why 
the government should not have employed counsel, and protected its 
rights to the bonds. ' ' 

But the Committee do see that it was eminently 
proper for Captain Crandall to turn them over to the 
Supervisors of Oneida county. At least they approve 
Captain CraiidalTs action in having done so. 

But, notwithstanding the Committee's logic, 
should not Captain Crandall have turned them over, 
as ordered, even if they did belong to Richardson? 
He held them as Provost Marshal, and when he ceased 
to act as such, and another Provost Marshal took 
his place and assumed all the duties, taking charge of 
all the property, records and business of the office, 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 335 

why should not Captain Crandall have turned over 
these bonds ? Was it not a complete defense, as against 
mdiardson^ that the government had so directed ? 
Were Ilicliarihoii! s rights in the premises in Jeopardy 
by a transfer of the bonds from one incumbent of the 
office of Provost Marshal to another? Would they 
not legally be in possession of the same depositary, 
viz., the Provost Marshal of the District ? 

But the Committee do not say that, if the bonds 
belonged to the government, it is still more difficult 
to see why Captain Crandall should not have turned 
them over as ordered, but say that " it is difficult to 
see why the government should not have employed 
counsel and protected its rights to the bonds," That 
is to say, having refused to turn them over, and dur- 
ing the delay which his disobedience of orders occa- 
sioned, another claimant having been enabled to seize 
them, the government ought to be particular to see 
that Captain Crandall is put to no expense or trouble 
in defending the suit, and I am blamable for not em- 
ploying counsel to protect him from the consequences 
of his disobedience of my orders. 

The remaining points in relation to this branch 
of the subject are briefly these : 

Admitting, for the sake of the ai'gument, that 
Captain Crandall ought not to have turned over the 
bonds to Major Haddock^ or Hoards and admitting 
that my order of March 30 did not include the 
bonds, what excuse does the Committee offer in his 
behalf for not turning them over to the United States 
disbursing officer, as directed, or to his successor. Ma- 
jor Beadle ? 



336 



GONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 



Can it be one of those reasons which his counsel, 
Judge Hunt, gives as to the motives which Captain 
Orandall had in retaining thein? Judge Hunt was 
acting as Captain OrandalTs counsel ; he must be sup- 
posed to have understood his motives, and he advised 
him as to his duties and conduct. In reply to Mr. 
GonMing'8 question (page 98) as to whether there 
was any motive or object about these bonds, on the 
part of Captain Crandall, Mr. ConMing or the wit- 
ness, ''except to enable the government to hold 
them for its benefit against Rlcliardson^'' Judge 
Hnnt answers: "I know of none but to hold them 
that the government might have the benefit of them, 
and to cojnpel the fvo'per conduct of Richardson during 
the Haddoch investigatioiir 

As the testimony discloses that the first of these 
reasons had no effect on the conduct of Captain Oran- 
dall in disposing of the bonds, as shown by his 
promptly surrendering them, after the Haddoch trial, 
to the Supervisors who issued them, we are forced to 
the conclusion that the second reason was the sole 
cause of his failure to obey the orders requiring him 
to turn them over. 

It ap23ears from the testimony that Richardson 
was the most important witness against Major Had- 
doch ; that Mr. CoiiMlng was the prosecutor of Major 
Haddoch ; and that Captaui Qrandcdl was a client of 
Judge Hunt's, and also a witness against Major Had- 
doch. Captain Orandall was not a client of Mr. Oonh- 
ling''s, although Mr. Conhling seemed to think that 
such was the impression, for he puts a witness on the 
stand to prove that " he never did act as counsel, or 
professionally, for Captain OrandcdV (page 98). 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 837 

But still there was an intimate relation existing 
between them, which Mr. Coiikling describes with 
much pathos in a letter to Mr. Dana, dated March 
13, 1865, in which he states (page 48), in reference 
to Captain Crandall, " that throughout his (^CrandaW s) 
short experience as Provost Marshal, he has constantly, 
from day to day, confided to me his troubles, his pro- 
ceedings, and the attempts made upon him." 

It may be assumed that Mr. ConJaluig, in some of 
these outpourings, was advised that Captain Crandall 
had been several times ordered to turn over money 
and bonds belonging to the government, and that he 
had disobeyed the orders. And while he was confid- 
ing to Mr. ConMing " all his troubles and his p?'Oceed- 
ings,^'' it may have been that he disclosed the reasons 
why he disobeyed the orders — one of which, his dis- 
tinguished counsel swears, was " to compel the proper 
conduct of Richardson during the Uaddoch investiga- 
tion,^'' of which Mr. ConMing was Judge Advocate. 

The relation of Richardson to the Haddock case 
was that of an informer and principal witness. He 
claimed these bonds and Captain Cramlcdl refused to 
turn them over, holding them, as Judge Hunt testifies, 
to compel" his proper conduct on the Haddock trial. 
The Committee did not give an opinion as to this rea- 
son for not turning over the bonds to the government. 
But, as they have fully justified Captain Crandall in 
all that he did in relation to these bonds, and as he 
furnished the Committee the reasons for his refusal to 
turn them over, one of which was that "he held them 
to compel the proper conduct of Hicliardson on the 
Haddock investigation," it is to be presumed that they 



338 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

also approved tlie reasons which induced the act. At 
any rate, they do not condemn them. 

To understand the force of this reason, let us 
glance at the situation of the parties at the period to 
which Judge Hunt refers. 

Much complaint had been urged in reference to 
the Utica office. Captain Jticliardson,^ Mr. Conk- 
ling's first selection, had been dismissed for alleged 
fraud (see page 130), and Captain Crandall had been 
suspended from duty, Major Haddock having previ- 
ously telegraphed to Captain Crandall that he " was 
filling the quota of Oneida county with bounty jump- 
ers and thiev^es" (page 142). Colonel Tracy and 
Lieutenant Lott had called the attention of the gov- 
ernment to the conduct of Captain Crandcdl ; and 
Colonel Axtell had protested against receiving any 
more recruits from that office (see pages 130 and 131). 
On the other hand, Mr. ConMing claimed that Major 
Haddock was perpetrating frauds at Elmira and else- 
where, but denied that Captain Crandall had been 
guilty of fraud, and offered " to become personally re- 
sponsible for him " (see page 48), while the Inspector 
General, who was sent to Utica at my request, to in- 
vestigate, reported against both Major Haddock and 
Captain Crandall (see page 155), and recommended 
that Major Haddock's conduct be investigated, and 
that Captain Crandall he dismissed the service. 

The relations of Captain Crandcdl to the case now 
assumed a grave character. He could ask an investi- 
gation for himself, or he could aid the prosecution of 
Major Haddock, and, by convicting him of a 23art, or 

* Not the same man as the Eichardson spoken of above. 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVEESY. 339 

the whole, of what was charged against himself, he 
would to a great extent not only relieve his name from 
suspicion, but exonerate Mr. ConMing, who had become 
responsible for him, and at the same time run no risk 
incident to a trial. 

It will be remembered that Mr. ConMing had 
written a letter to the President, protesting against 
the removal of Captain Hicliardson, whose appoint- 
ment he had secured, and, about the 13th of March, 
Captain CrandaU prepared a defense of himself and an 
arraignment of Major Haddock^ which Mr. ConMing 
had printed (page 256 and page 49), and which the 
latter followed up with a letter to the War Depart- 
ment, denouncing Major Haddock and eulogizing 
Captain CrandaU {^qq page 48). This was dated the 
13 th of March. The report of Major Luddington, 
recommending Captain CrandaWs dismissal from the 
service, was dated March 31, and on the 3d day of 
April following, Mr. ConMing was appoibted to prose- 
cute Major Haddock. In the meantime, Mr. Aaron 
Richardson, who/or some time previous to Major Had- 
dock's connection ivith the Provost Marshal GeneraVs 
Bureau, in western New York, had been operating at 
Utica as a " substitute broker," and was still there in 
that capacity, had committed offenses for which he 
had been arrested, and from which arrest he had been 
released by the intervention of Mr. ConMing, as here- 
tofore stated, and in relation to which release Mr. Conh- 
ling had consulted and advised with Judge Hunt, the 
counsel of Captain Crandcdl (see page 99). The con- 
sideration which Richardson agreed to offer Mr. Conk- 
ling for his interference was certain disclosures which 



340 CONKLING AND BLAINE-PRY CONTROVERSY. 

he proposed to make, provided lie should be protected 
from the penalty of the law for his offenses. Captain 
Grandall had in his hands $20,000 in Oneida county 
bonds, which belonged to the government, but which 
Richardson claimed belonged to him. 

This was the situation of the parties at the period 
to which Judge Hunt refers. 

The feelings and interests of these parties may be 
briefly considered. Mr. ConMing and Captain Gran- 
dall were on terms of intimacy and cordiality, but 
were both bitterly hostile to Major Haddock. Richard- 
son, on his part, had two objects to accomplish, in 
which he felt a strong personal interest. First, he 
desired to keep out of trouble ; and second, he was 
anxious to get hold of the $20,000 in bonds, which 
Captain Crandall held, and which he claimed. In this 
condition of things, it seems that an understanding 
was arrived at, to the effect that if, in the rose-water 
style of putting it, Richardson " would make dis- 
closures," he should be " protected " against any prose- 
cution on the part of the government, and the $20,000 
should " be held to compel his "proper conduct during 
the investigation of the case of HaddochP As his re- 
lation thereto was simply that of a witness, his conduct 
on the trial was the conduct of a witness. Being only 
a man, and a substitute broker, he was unable to re- 
sist the opportunity offered. It promised, at least, 
indemnity for the past, if not security for the futui'e ; 
and that was certainly more than he had any right to 
expect, to say nothing of the $20,000 in anticipation. 

The remaining portion of this subject is found in 
the recoi-d of the Haddock Court Martial, and is tlius 



CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY. 341 

iiiti'odueed by Mr. ConMinrfs counsel, on page 195 of 
tliis recoi'd : 

"■ Mr. Hotchhiss called tlie attention of the Com- 
mittee to that part of the record of the Haddock Court 
Maitial, e-liowing that liicJuirdson was a witness, and 
showing the materiality and importance of his evi- 
dence," (fee. 

This, it is thought, sufficiently explains the sub- 
ject of the bonds. 










^l^.f'^fev' 



■■^^7^ 



^,,.^J* 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Hill mil iiii' 'III' Hill iiii'iiiniiii mil iiiii 



III! 



013 703 071 8 



